Category Archives: Ron Paul

Former Rep.Ron Paul (R-Texas), who has been called the father of the tea party, got caught with no pants during a Zoom podcast this week and Stephen Colbert couldnt keep his lip zipped. (Watch the video below.)

Paul, the 85-year-old libertarian, appeared on Doug Caseys Take,wearing a sport coat and dress shirt above the waist. At the end of the show, he pulled his chair away and accidentally revealed he was wearing what The Late Show host called Daisy Dukes shorts.

Hes not just small government, he is tiny trousers, Colbert quipped on Thursday. And definitely leans to the right.

The comedian thanked Paul, a three-time presidential candidate whose son is Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), for showing us the future of the libertarian movement: free-thinking, unregulated ball-hugging hot pants!

Calling all HuffPost superfans!

Sign up for membership to become a founding member and help shape HuffPost's next chapter

Read more from the original source:
Stephen Colbert Goes Off On Ron Paul Wearing 'Daisy Dukes' Shorts In Interview - HuffPost

With all American adults soon to be eligible for Covid-19 vaccines and businesses and international borders reopening, a fierce debate has kicked off across the United States over whether a digital health certificate (often and somewhat misleadingly called a vaccine passport) should be required to prove immunization status.

Currently, Americans are issued a white paper card as evidence of their Covid-19 shots, but these can easily be forged, and online scammers are already selling false and stolen vaccine cards.

While the federal government has said it will not introduce digital vaccine passports by federal mandate, a growing number of businesses from cruise lines to sports venues say they will require proof of vaccinations for entry or services. Hundreds of digital health pass initiatives are scrambling to launch apps that provide a verified electronic record of immunizations and negative Covid-19 test results to streamline the process.

The drive has raised privacy and equity concerns and some states like Florida and Texas have banned businesses from requiring vaccination certificates. But developers argue that the digital infrastructure is secure and will help speed up the process of reopening society and reviving travel.

Governments, technology companies, airlines and other businesses are testing different versions of the digital health passes and are trying to come up with common standards so that there is compatibility between each system and health records can be pulled in a safe and controlled format.

The process comes with great technical challenges, especially because of the sheer number of app initiatives underway. For the certificates to be useful, countries, airlines and businesses must agree on common standards and the infrastructure they use will need to be compatible. In the United States, there is an added complexity of getting individual states to share immunization data with different certificate platforms while maintaining the privacy of residents.

Heres what we know about the current status of digital health passes and some of the roadblocks they are facing in the United States.

For the moment, only if you live in New York. Last month, it became the first state in the United States to launch a digital health certificate called the Excelsior Pass, which verifies a persons negative coronavirus test result and if they are fully vaccinated.

The app and website is free and voluntary for all New York residents, and provides a QR code that can be scanned or printed out to verify a persons health data. The pass has been used by thousands of New Yorkers to enter Yankee Stadium, Madison Square Garden and other smaller public venues.

Most businesses require people to show their state I.D. along with their Excelsior Pass to prevent potential fraud.

In Israel, where more than half the population is fully vaccinated, residents must show an electronic Green Pass to attend places such as gyms, concerts, wedding halls and to dine indoors. As part of its plans to reopen to foreign visitors, Israel has said it will require them to take a blood test upon arrival proving that they have been vaccinated. Once a vaccine certificate is introduced for travelers, the test will no longer be required.

The European Union has endorsed the idea of an electronic vaccine certificate, which could be ready by June, but each individual member country will be able to set its own rules for travel requirements. Britain has also started testing a Covid-19 certificate system that aims to help businesses reopen safely.

Some airlines including Lufthansa, Virgin Atlantic and Jet Blue have started to use the digital health app, Common Pass, to verify passenger Covid-19 test results before they board flights. The International Air Transport Associations Health Pass is being tested by more than 20 airlines and will allow passengers to upload health credentials necessary for international travel.

It depends on state regulations. The Biden administration has said there will be no federal vaccination system or mandate. Individual states hold primary public health powers in the United States and have the authority to require vaccines.

We expect a vaccine passport, or whatever you want to call it, will be driven by the private sector, Jen Psaki, the White House press secretary, said at a recent briefing. There will be no centralized, universal federal vaccinations database and no federal mandate requiring everyone to obtain a single vaccination credential.

Earlier this month, Gov. Greg Abbott of Texas issued an executive order banning government agencies, private businesses and institutions that receive state funding from requiring people to show proof that they have been vaccinated against the coronavirus.

Ron DeSantis, the Florida governor, issued a similar order, saying that requiring proof of vaccination would reduce individual freedom and harm patient privacy as well as create two classes of citizens based on vaccinations.

But those orders may not stick. The governors are on shaky legal ground, said Lawrence Gostin, the director of the ONeill Institute for National and Global Health Law at Georgetown University. Certainly, the legislature has authority to regulate businesses in the state, and it can also pre-empt counties and local governments from issuing vaccine passports. But a governor, acting on his or her own, has no inherent power to regulate businesses other than through emergency or other health powers that the legislature gives them.

In the United States, there is no centralized federal vaccine database. Instead, the states collect that information. All states except New Hampshire have their own immunization registries and some cities, like New York, have their own.

Currently states are required to share their registries with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, but the data is not public and could be withheld.

That means anyone developing a digital vaccine certificate in the United States would have to obtain immunization data from individual states, which could be problematic in states that oppose health pass initiatives.

One of the issues is with terminology. A passport is issued by a government and certifies personal data including a persons legal name and date of birth. Many people fear that if they are required to have one related to the coronavirus, they will be handing over personal and sensitive health data to private companies that could be stolen or used for other purposes.

There are a whole lot of valid concerns about how privacy and technology would work with these systems, especially as Silicon Valley does not have a great history delivering technologies that are privacy enhancing, said Brian Behlendorf, executive director of Linux Foundation Public Health, an open-source, technology-focused organization.

And the concept of privacy here is complicated because you are ultimately trying to prove to somebody that you received something, he said. You arent keeping a secret, so the challenge is to present and prove something without creating a chain of traceability forever that might be used.

The Linux Foundation is working with a network of technology companies called the Covid-19 Credentials Initiative to develop a set of standards for preserving privacy in the use of vaccine certificates. The main aim of the initiative is to establish a verifiable credential (much like a card in ones wallet) that contains a set of claims about an individual but is digitally native and cryptographically secure.

Some argue that such a credential would intrude on personal freedoms and private health choices.

Vaccine passports must be stopped, former Representative Ron Paul of Texas wrote in a Tweet last week. Accepting them means accepting the false idea that government owns your life, body and freedom.

Others worry that an exclusively digital system would leave some communities behind, especially those who do not have access to smartphones or the internet.

Any solutions in this area should be simple, free, open source, accessible to people both digitally and on paper, and designed from the start to protect peoples privacy, Jeff Zients, the White House coronavirus coordinator, said in a statement.

The World Health Organization said it does not back requiring vaccination passports for travel yet because of the uncertainty over whether inoculation prevents transmission of the virus, as well as equity concerns.

Follow New York Times Travel on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook. And sign up for our weekly Travel Dispatch newsletter to receive expert tips on traveling smarter and inspiration for your next vacation. Dreaming up a future getaway or just armchair traveling? Check out our 52 Places list for 2021.

Read more from the original source:
Can You Get a 'Vaccine Passport'? And Other Questions, Answered - The New York Times

A U.S Army soldier walks behind an Afghan policeman during a joint patrol with Afghan police and Canadian soldiers west of Kandahar, Afghanistan in 2007. (Goran Tomasevic/Reuters)Two decades of the conflict have shown us what American foreign-policy failure looks like. What success looks like remains unclear.

Joe Biden has announced that the last U.S. troops will leave Afghanistan before the highly symbolic date of September 11, 2021, the 20-year anniversary of the terror attacks that reminded all the Americans out there in TV-land that Afghanistan hadnt just disappeared after our interest in the failed Soviet engagement there faded.

This represents a small extension of the U.S. presence after the Trump administration negotiated a withdrawal originally scheduled to be complete by May 1. For many Americans and, in particular, for many conservatives this cannot come soon enough.

The George W. Bush administration is likely to be remembered as the high-water mark for a certain kind of conservatism, a certain kind of Republican Party, and a certain kind of American foreign-policy consensus. None of those has survived the 20 years since 9/11.

There was a time when conservatives embraced the adjective Wilsonian. Woodrow Wilson has come into ill repute on the right, thanks in no small part to the efforts of my friend and former National Review colleague Jonah Goldberg and his Liberal Fascism, which connected the war socialism and central-planning progressivism of Wilson et al. with similar movements, generally authoritarian, around the world. But before he was Wilson the proto-fascist, he was Wilson the muscular internationalist, an exemplary figure to the conservatives whom Colin Dueck of George Mason University describes as third-wave Wilsonians, more skeptical than their progressive peers of multilateral institutions but sharing an optimistic emphasis on worldwide democratization.

Because the American political conversation is conducted at a level of crippling oversimplification, Afghanistan was understood for a time as the new good war, while Iraq was another Vietnam, a quagmire fought on a lie. But Afghanistan was never only about hunting down al-Qaeda, and Iraq was never only or even mainly about Saddam Husseins arsenal. The more biting critique of the Bush administration is not its purported insincerity about weapons of mass destruction but its utterly sincere and culpably optimistic conviction that Afghanistan and Iraq could, with sufficient sustained effort, be remade in the liberal-democratic mold, as Japan and Germany had been after World War II. It was the domino theory in reverse: Vicious authoritarian regimes would be converted one by one as their neighbors realized the benefits of joining the U.S.-led order.

A few realists suggested that at the very least, we could succeed in making Afghanistan into something more like Pakistan; instead, the last 20 years have seen Pakistan become something more like Afghanistan, albeit a more amusing version with a partly reformed playboy-cricketeer as the face of a regime that operates as an extension of a vicious crime syndicate led by the countrys military and intelligence services with the cooperation of its religious authorities. Though we had hoped that Afghanistan would find a Benazir Bhutto figure corrupt, admittedly, but liberal and secular there was no such factotum to be found. (And Bhutto-ism, if we can call it that, mostly withered in its native soil, too.) We went into Afghanistan convinced that there was no place in the civilized world for the Taliban, and we ended up making a place at the table for the terrorist militia, conducting peace negotiations directly with its leaders while snubbing the notionally legitimate government of the Islamic republic set up under our auspices.

Theres realism, and then theres reality: Wilson didnt make the world safe for democracy, but he won his war and George W. Bush didnt win his.

Wilsonian conservatism survives in the think tanks and in syndicated columns, but it is out of power in the Republican Party. (To the extent that Democrats have their own version of muscular internationalism, it is directed at carbon dioxide.) This is partly a result of the failure of the Bush-era democracy project, and partly a result of the intense personal hatred that certain Republican figures who rose with Donald Trump have for neoconservatives and hawks such as Bill Kristol and John Bolton, the latter of whom was in the Trump administration without being of it, so to speak. But beyond the paleo distaste for Manhattan-raised Jews and people who went to Yale, the Right is being made to reengage with a very old factional dispute that long predates 9/11 or Trumps entry into politics.

In the world of conservative ideological camps, this disagreement is expressed in the confrontation of the Wilsonian tendency with the isolationist/noninterventionist/America First tendency, which runs from Charles Lindbergh and anti-war Republicans such as Senator Bob Taft to more modern figures such as Pat Buchanan, Ross Perot, Ron Paul, and Donald Trump. Populists take a nickel-and-dime view of international relations, which is why they pay so much attention to such trivial (from a purely financial point of view) issues as foreign aid. Upstarts challenging powerful incumbents or entrenched establishment figures almost invariably affect a populist demeanor that is abandoned when campaign time is over: Then-candidate Barack Obama, no paleoconservative, complained in 2008 about the money spent on nation building abroad when it could have been spent filling potholes in Sheboygan, but governed as a man who enjoyed a good drone strike. The rhetorical necessities of populism are making great things small and complex things simple. The necessities of responsible government are . . . not doing that.

To the extent that the Republican Party is converting itself into a right-wing populist party the National Farmer-Labor Party envisioned by such figures as Senator Josh Hawley it will tend to revert to the nickel-and-dime mode of Ron Paul and Donald Trump and candidate Obama. Whats in it for us? is an important question in international relations, but it needs an enlightened mind to answer it constructively. President Trump treated NATO like he was trying to divide up the bill at a restaurant after an expensive dinner and demanding to know who ordered the priciest appetizer. It is important to watch the nickels and dimes, but it also is important to spend them wisely when the time comes. Preventing 9/11 would have been very difficult, but it neednt have been very expensive.

Republicans might retreat into something like the principled pacifism of Taft, who was greatly preferred by postwar conservatives to the moderate multilateralist Dwight Eisenhower, though it is difficult to shoehorn principled and Matt Gaetz into the same sentence. Foreign policy interacts with domestic politics in complicated and unpredictable ways, but a minimalist orientation might be the best this generation of Republicans can manage a know-nothing party with a do-nothing foreign policy.

Give the Taftians this: The United States does spend too much money on the military and on related security affairs, it does maintain too many bases in too many countries around the world, it does bring unneeded troubles on itself by its occasionally rash and headlong enthusiasms, it does fail to derive as much benefit from the multilateral institutions it supports as it might, and it does pay a high price (much more than an economic price) for acting as de facto policeman of the world for being and having been for so long the principal guarantor of security in a world whose people when in danger most certainly do not cry out with one voice: Thank God! Its the Belgians! As what Professor Dueck calls the Wilsonian century fades into memory, Americans are exhausted. A period of consolidation might be of benefit.

But give the Wilsonians their due, too: When the United States retreats from the world, it does not leave a vacuum; it only creates opportunities for other actors, China prominent among them, whose leaders have ambitions as audacious as Wilsons but would remake the world along decidedly illiberal and antidemocratic lines. Unlike the Americans, the Chinese do not try to get other countries to adopt their model of government or their fundamental values they simply do their best to bully them into acting in Beijings interests. The United States will remain for such ambitious parties either an obstacle, a rival, or an outright enemy there is no imaginable outcome in which we are too quiet to take notice of.

And so while the United States may withdraw its troops from Afghanistan, that does not mean that the United States will have no interests in Afghanistan. The United States has interests everywhere, because the United States is in the world and connected to it, and it is not as easily overlooked as Finland. What we have learned from Afghanistan or what we could learn, if we are willing is what failure looks like.

What success is going to look like, we still dont know. We have spent 20 years and more than 2,300 American lives trying to figure that out, and I am not sure that we have made any real progress.

Follow this link:
The Lessons of the Afghan War - National Review

Former President TrumpDonald TrumpTrump mocks Murkowski, Cheney election chances Race debate grips Congress US reentry to Paris agreement adds momentum to cities' sustainability efforts MORE's recent endorsements of Sens. Ron JohnsonRonald (Ron) Harold JohnsonPelosi: Dropping 9/11-style Jan. 6 commission an 'option' amid opposition Wisconsin state Treasurer Sarah Godlewski launches Senate bid Biden picks vocal Trump critics to lead immigration agencies MORE (R-Wis.), Rand PaulRandal (Rand) Howard PaulAnti-Asian hate crimes bill overcomes first Senate hurdle Fauci on Tucker Carlson vaccine comments: 'Typical crazy conspiracy theory' Republicans need to stop Joe Biden's progressive assault on America MORE (R-Ky.) and Marco RubioMarco Antonio RubioThe Memo: Biden puts 9/11 era in rear view Intelligence leaders push for mandatory breach notification law Intelligence leaders warn of threats from China, domestic terrorism MORE (R-Fla.) are exposing a rift between Republicans who want to leave the Trump era behind and those who see his populist brand of conservatism as a winning formula.

By dropping a string of Senate endorsements almost 20 months before Election Day, Trump is inserting himself squarely in the internal debate among GOP lawmakers about where they want to go as a party and how closely they want to work with President BidenJoe BidenHouse panel approves bill to set up commission on reparations Democrats to offer bill to expand Supreme Court Former Israeli prime minister advises Iran to 'cool down' amid nuclear threats MORE.

He is also sending signals to allies that he can protect them from primary challenges next year, a potentially strong incentive for fellow Republicans not to discard his legacy.

Its a great preemptive thing to put off any potential challengers, said Jim McLaughlin, a Republican strategist, who noted that Trump has a very good relationship with Sen. Rick Scott (Fla.), head of the Senate GOPs campaign arm.

McLaughlin said Trumps growing interest in the early machinations of the 2022 election cycle will similarly send a message to Republicans that they need to fight against Bidens agenda, which aims in large part to dismantle the previous administrations policies.

Some GOP senators, like Sens. Susan CollinsSusan Margaret CollinsOVERNIGHT ENERGY: Senate confirms Mallory to lead White House environment council | US emissions dropped 1.7 percent in 2019 | Interior further delays Trump rule that would make drillers pay less to feds Anti-Asian hate crimes bill overcomes first Senate hurdle On The Money: Senate confirms Gensler to lead SEC | Senate GOP to face off over earmarks next week | Top Republican on House tax panel to retire MORE (Maine), Lisa MurkowskiLisa Ann MurkowskiTrump mocks Murkowski, Cheney election chances Biden picks Obama alum for No. 2 spot at Interior Biden outreach on infrastructure met with Republican skepticism MORE (Alaska) and Mitt RomneyWillard (Mitt) Mitt RomneyRomney, Sinema teaming up on proposal to raise minimum wage Family policy that could appeal to the right and the left Press: Corporate America defies the GOP MORE (Utah), say they want to work with Biden. They were part of a group that met with the president in early February to explore a compromise coronavirus relief package. But Biden quickly dismissed their proposal as being insufficient.

In the end, not a single congressional Republican voted for Bidens $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan.

Some Republican lawmakers see Trumps departure from the White House as a chance to break with certain policies that were broadly unpopular in the Senate GOP conference. Among those were Trumps approach to trade and foreign policy.

Republican lawmakers havent yet decided whether they want to renounce Trumps trade and tariff practices, and Biden is keeping them in place for now.

On foreign policy, there hasnt been much pushback from the Senate Republican Conference over Bidens decision to mend fences with NATO allies. The president strongly reaffirmed the U.S. commitment to NATO in February by declaring: An attack on one is an attack on all. That is our unshakeable vow.

But for other Republicans, Trumps out-of-office support is fuel to propel their own careers and expand the GOP base among working-class voters. GOP strategists note that Johnson, Paul and Rubio all wanted Trumps endorsement.

Sen. Josh HawleyJoshua (Josh) David HawleyAnti-Asian hate crimes bill overcomes first Senate hurdle Republicans see record fundraising in months after Capitol breach Biden sparks bipartisan backlash on Afghanistan withdrawal MORE (R-Mo.) is among the handful of Republican senators who have embraced Trumps populism and see it as the future of the party.

Hawley says he will unveil a trust busting agenda for [the] 21st century this week focused on giant woke corporations" that "keep telling Bidens big lie about Georgia.

That agenda isnt sitting well with all conservatives.

I agree with the sentiments right up until he advocates for a policy that is anti-free market, said Brian Darling, a GOP strategist. The one thing Republicans have to resist more than anything is the urge to use antitrust laws to hit back at these corporations they disagree with.

Hawley also broke with much of the GOP conference last year by endorsing $2,000 stimulus checks in what became a $900 billion compromise measure passed by Congress in December. Trump also favored sending out $2,000 checks, but many Republicans balked at the idea.

At the other end of the spectrum is Murkowski, who wants the GOP to return to being the big tent party that it was under President Reagan.

If the Republican Party continues to be the party of Trump, Im not quite sure where I fit, she said in January.

She got a boost Friday when the Senate Leadership Fund, a super PAC linked to Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnellAddison (Mitch) Mitchell McConnellThe Memo: Biden puts 9/11 era in rear view Anti-Asian hate crimes bill overcomes first Senate hurdle Greitens Senate bid creates headache for GOP MORE (R-Ky.), endorsed her for reelection in 2022.

Alaska needs the kind of experienced representation that Lisa Murkowski provides in the United States Senate, said the groups president, Steven Law, who formerly served as McConnells chief of staff.

McConnell has broken with Trump since he lost to Biden. The GOP leader stopped speaking to the president in mid-December and in February denounced his role in inciting the mob of supporterswho stormedthe Capitol on Jan. 6 while lawmakers were tallying the Electoral College vote.

Trump has been relatively quiet since being banned from Twitter in early January. But he has made his presence in Republican politics increasingly felt in recent days with a series of statements and endorsements from his post-presidential office and his Save America PAC.

The PAC has raised $85 million to bolster Trumps most loyal allies, a reminder to fellow Republicans that he intends to remain a political force.

This past week he endorsed Johnson, Paul and Rubio, three of his most loyal Senate allies, who are up for reelection next year. Johnson, who spearheaded an inquiry into Hunter Bidens work for a Ukrainian energy company a favorite Trump topic hasnt announced yet whether hell seek a third term.

Trumpurged Johnson to Run, Ron, Run! even though Democrats think they might have a better chance of winning the seat if hes the GOP nominee.

I hope he does run. It makes it easier for the Democrats to pick it up. Hes been so radical and outrageous on so many issues recently that I think it makes an easier pick up for Democrats if hes in, said Ben Nuckels, a Democratic strategist who helped Wisconsin Gov. Tony EversTony EversWisconsin Supreme Court rules against restaurant, bar capacity limits Trump's early endorsements reveal GOP rift Biden rescinds Trump-approved Medicaid work requirements in Michigan, Wisconsin MORE (D) win in 2018.

Brandon Scholz, a Republican strategist based in Wisconsin, predicted Democrats will reprise the anti-Trump tactics and rhetoric they deployed in 2020.

He said Trumps endorsement certainly is going to work for the Democrats, who are trying to create the same campaign that they ran against Donald Trump in the presidential race against Ron Johnson.

Democrats didnt run an issues-based campaign against Trump in Wisconsin, Scholz said, but instead ran one focused on his character and behavior.

They hated Donald Trump that is what the campaign was about, he said. My sense is theyre trying to recreate that campaign.

View original post here:
Trump's early endorsements reveal GOP rift | TheHill - The Hill

You know all those Florida Man stories? Florida man arrested for throwing alligator through drive-thru window, Florida man learns the hard way he stole laxatives, not opioids, etc.?

There are several theories for why Florida men stand out so much, starting with Florida is just weird. The most interesting involves the streetlight effect, a logical fallacy inspired by the old joke about the drunk who looks for his lost car keys only under a streetlight because thats where the light is good something you could definitely see Florida Man doing.

The Sunshine State has robust sunshine laws, making it easy to get arrest information quickly. Hence, according to this theory, Florida Man is no more outlandish than, say, California Man; its just that we can see Florida man under the medias streetlight.

Interesting theory. Lets test it out.

Three Florida men former President Donald Trump, Rep. Matt Gaetz and Gov. Ron DeSantis define the Republican Party these days. Trump, a recently minted Floridian, surely deserves outsized attention as much as he craves it. He and his enablers are determined to keep the GOP in his thrall. Just over the weekend, Trump told a group of donors at Mar-a-Lago that Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell was a dumb son of a b---- and repeated his bogus claims about the election being stolen.

Gaetz, a leading Trump toady, is in the crosshairs of the FBI and a House ethics investigation for the alleged sex trafficking of a minor. That feels very homo floridus. Thats two for the Florida-is-weird column.

Then theres DeSantis. He has also played the role of Trump superfan and is adept at arousing media anger a job requirement on the right these days. But unlike Gaetz (and, frankly, Trump), DeSantis actually knows how to govern effectively.

Politically, the key difference between DeSantis and Gaetz is that Gaetz garners media attention by making an ass of himself, while DeSantis makes the media look asinine when it tries to make him out to be nothing more than a Trump wannabe.

The fact is, DeSantis did better with the public than Trump during the worst times of the COVID-19 pandemic and handled the pandemic better than many Democratic governors. Before the pandemic, his governing agenda earned him a 62 percent approval rating. In this case, his critics wont gain much traction by tarring him as another Florida weirdo. In fact, outlandishly unfair attacks, like CBS recent 60 Minutes report on DeSantis, are likely to gain him more support.

Some conservative pundits are already focusing on DeSantis as the face of the post-Trump right. But its early yet. Just ask former Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, once hailed as a fighter whod save the GOP.

The comparison with Wisconsin is instructive. For years, the Badger State punched well above its weight nationally, with Walker, former House Speaker Paul Ryan and former Republican National Committee Chair Reince Priebus dominating the GOP. Now its Floridas turn.

Trump explains some of that. The yearly Conservative Political Action Conference is essentially an arm of Trump Inc. now. Republican politicians are required to decamp for Mar-a-Lago to ask for favor or forgiveness from Trump. Trump even holds auditions for his endorsement.

But handicappers shouldnt just focus on the political Florida Man stories. The GOPs path out of the wilderness may be a long one, but it will start in Florida. Republicans cant win the Electoral College without the state. Moreover, Florida is one of Americas most demographically representative battleground states. Wisconsins hegemony brought one set of issues Ryans fixation on entitlements, for example to the fore, while Floridas ascendancy could further push up issues such as school choice on the Republican agenda.

Also, not only does Florida regularly produce Republican politicians who know how to appeal to a diverse electorate, it has a diverse electorate that is open to electing Republicans.

For years, Democrats took the slogan demography is destiny too seriously, believing that a growing electorate of nonwhite voters would guarantee victory. Florida defies those lazy assumptions.

In 2018, running against Andrew Gillum, the African American mayor of Tallahassee, DeSantis got 44 percent of the Latino vote and 30 percent of the nonwhite vote. And Trump himself improved with Latino voters in 2020.

So, score two out of three for Florida men bringing some special weirdness to the table. Still, it remains to be seen whether DeSantis can ultimately get out of Trumps shadow and into the light, or whether the Florida Man-in-Chief will even let him.

Jonah Goldberg is editor-in-chief of The Dispatch and the host of The Remnant podcast. His Twitter handle is @JonahDispatch.

2021 Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

Read the original post:
This Florida Man may lead the GOP out of the wilderness | Column - Tampa Bay Times

Through poetry, Hajjar Baban has found her voice and her calling.

Her chosen field, she says, allows her to be honest about my understanding of the world while changing and imagining new ways of being.

Hajjar Baban

The 2020 UWMadison graduate already has achieved considerable success. Shes now poised for more.

Baban has been named one of 30 recipients of a 2021 Paul & Daisy SorosFellowship for New Americans, a merit-based graduate school program for immigrants and children of immigrants. She was chosen from a pool of 2,445 applicants, the most in the programs history.

Baban currently is pursuing a master of fine arts degree in poetry at the University of Virginia. Each Soros Fellow receives up to $90,000 in funding to support their graduate studies.

Born in Pakistan, Baban immigrated to the U.S. with her parents when she was 2. Her mother had sought refuge in Pakistan from the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and her father had escaped persecution in Pakistan as a Kurd in Iran.

Baban and her siblings grew up in Dearborn, Michigan. In high school, through a Google search of poetry slam events in the area, Baban began writing with InsideOut, a Detroit literary arts program. She later served as the 2017 Detroit Youth Poet Laureate.

She attended UWMadison through the First Wave Scholarship Program, the first and only full-tuition scholarship for urban arts. She majored in English and creative writing and also studied Persian, Arabic and Pashto.

Poetry, Baban says, allows her to be honest about my understanding of the world while changing and imagining new ways of being.

As a freshman, Baban was a finalist for the inaugural position of National Youth Poet Laureate. She finished second to Amanda Gorman, the poet who delivered an original composition at President Joe Bidens inauguration in January.

Baban has received both university awards and those from literary magazines, including the Charles M. Hart Jr. Writers of Promise Award, the George B. Hill Poetry Award, the Ron Wallace Poetry Thesis Prize, the Gearhart Poetry Prize, and the Matt Clark Editors Choice Prize. Her work has appeared in The Offing, Foundry Magazine, and the Asian American Writers Workshop magazine, among others. She recently completed her first full-length poetry manuscript, Singular Wreckings.

Those eligible for New American Fellowships include green card holders, naturalized citizens, Deferred Action for Childhood Arrival (DACA) recipients, individuals born abroad who graduated from both high school and college in the United States, and the U.S.-born children of two immigrants.

The award demonstrates the immense contributions that immigrants of all backgrounds make to the United States, says fellowship director Craig Harwood. Each 2021 Fellow is a reminder of what is best about this country.

Much of Babans work touches on concepts of nation and belonging. She intends to continue to look for opportunities to be in community with immigrant writers, whether as a mentor or student herself.

To me, being a New American means moving about this country with intention of my identity how it impacts, how I can heal, and what it means for those who come after me, Baban says.

Another UWMadison graduate, HaoYang (Carl) Jiang,was awarded a Soros Fellowship in 2018 to pursue a career in law.

Excerpt from:
Recent UW grad, an Afghan Kurdish poet, wins $90,000 scholarship for immigrants with exceptional potential - University of Wisconsin-Madison

On March 24th, Ukraines President Vladimir Zelensky signed what was essentially a declaration of war on Russia. In the document, titled Presidential Decree No. 117/2021, the US-backed Ukrainian leader declared that it is the official policy of Ukraine to take back Crimea from Russia.

The declaration that Ukraine would take back Crimea from Russia also followed, and was perhaps instigated by, President Bidens inflammatory and foolish statement that Crimea is Ukraine.

US Secretary of State Antony Blinken, who was a chief architect of the US-backed coup against Ukraine in 2014, continued egging on the Ukrainians, promising full US support for the territorial integrity of Ukraine. Many Americans wonder why they are not even half as concerned about the territorial integrity of the United States!

Not to be outdone, at the beginning of this month US Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin who previously served on the board of missile-maker Raytheon called his counterpart in Ukraine and promised unwavering US support for Ukraines sovereignty. As the US considers Crimea to be Ukrainian territory, this is clearly a clear green light for Kiev to take military action.

Washington is also sending in weapons. Some 300 tons of new weapons have arrived in the past weeks and more is on the way.

As could be expected, Moscow has responded to Zelenskys decree and to the increasingly bellicose rhetoric in Kiev and Washington by re-positioning troops and other military assets closer to its border with Ukraine. Does anyone doubt that if the US were in the same situation for example, if China installed a hostile and aggressive government in Mexico the Pentagon might move troops in a similar manner?

But according to the media branch of the US military-industrial-Congressional-media complex, Russian troop movements are not a response to clear threats from a neighbor, but instead are just more Russian aggression.

The unhinged US experts behind the 2014 coup against the elected Ukrainian president are back in power and they are determined to finish the job even if it means World War III! The explicit US backing of Ukraines military ambitions in the region are a blank check to Kiev.

But it is a check that Kiev would be wise to avoid cashing. Back in 1956 the US government pumped endless propaganda into Hungary promising military backing for an uprising against its Soviet occupiers. When the Hungarians, believing Washingtons lies, did rise up they found themselves all alone and facing Soviet retaliation.

Despite the cruel US propaganda, at least Eisenhower was wise enough to realize that no one would benefit from a nuclear war over Budapest.

Why is it any of our business whether Crimea is part of Ukraine or part of Russia? Why is it any of our business if the Russian-speaking population of eastern Ukraine prefer being aligned with Russia?

Why, for that matter, are unproven allegations of Russian meddling in our elections a violation of the rules-based international order but an actual US-backed coup against an elected Ukrainian government is not?

We are seeing foreign policy made by Raytheon and the other US military contractors, through cut-outs in government like Austin and others. Feckless US foreign policy experts believe their own propaganda about Russia and are on the verge of taking us to war over it.

It seems as if Americans are sleepwalking through this dangerous minefield. Let us hope they soon wake up beforewere all blown up.

This article was published by RonPaul Institute.

See the rest here:
Ron Paul: Why Is Biden Administration Pushing Ukraine To Attack Russia? OpEd - Eurasia Review

Former congressman Ron Paul has warned of a government crackdown on bitcoin and safe-haven assets may not be safe from government intervention. The government is the threat, he said, noting that they will crack down because they have the ability to do it.

Former presidential candidate Ron Paul shared his view on the governments intervention on bitcoin in an interview last week with Kitco News Michelle Makori. Paul is an American author, physician, and retired politician. The former congressman from Texas launched The Ron Paul Liberty Report in 2015 to bring provocative opinion and analysis to the breaking issues affecting our lives and finances, its website describes.

Paul was asked about the threat of potential gold confiscation or one form or other of government intervention because that concern is rising. Several well-known hedge fund managers, like Bridgewater Associates founder Ray Dalio and The Big Short investor Michael Burry, have said that safe-haven assets are not necessarily going to be safe from government intervention, Makori recalled. They expect possible tax changes or regulations that will prevent a flight of capital to these assets that could be viewed as an alternative to the dollar, like gold, like bitcoin. She then asked Paul, Could they be at risk of a government crackdown?

The former congressman replied:

Absolutedly the government is the threat because they will crack down because they have the ability to do it.

He added: We had a taste of [a free society]. If you dont know where to start, just start with the Constitution, that might give you an idea of what a free society is all about.

Paul was also asked: What form of a crackdown do you think this could take when we talk about assets, like gold and even bitcoin, potentially being at risk of government intervention at higher taxes and regulation what do you think could happen to those assets?

The former congressman replied, I think all of that can happen. He elaborated that Either the tax system will be used or the government will just print more money, resulting in the devaluation of the currency.

He further opined: But they will do it for public relations reasons. They will have to show that theyre putting a heavy tax on the very wealthy because of the civil strife thats going on.

On President Joe Bidens proposed infrastructure bill, Paul expects its outcome to be worse than average. He opined: Most likely it will do what those kinds of programs always do, they spend a lot of money, theyre inefficient, they always cost more than they thought they should. Besides, its built on some mystical belief that you shouldnt have any concern about the deficit everybodys just in a dream.

What do you think about Ron Pauls warning about bitcoin and government intervention? Let us know in the comments section below.

Image Credits: Shutterstock, Pixabay, Wiki Commons

Read the original here:
Ron Paul Warns of Government Crackdown on Bitcoin 'The Government Is the Threat' Regulation Bitcoin News - Bitcoin News

Bitcoin is becoming very popular, and its pretty evident that all governments are following it closely. Many analysts and those who believe in the coin are referring to the safe investment that everyone needed. It is also being referred to as a replacement to fiat curreny by many. Considering that it is really obvious that if Bitcoin comes too close to replacing fiat, it could be banned by the government. This is why Ron Paul, the former congressman, said, The government is the threat. He thinks that the government could take down BTC just because they can.

There is a huge threat to Bitcoin from the US government. In an interview, Ron Paul said that he thinks that the government could take out Bitcoin. With cryptocurrency becoming more popular every day, the usage is increasing, and so is the adoption. And we are sitting awfully close to the time when it will be either BTC or fiat. In that case, I am sure to maintain the monopoly of the government, BTC could be banned. This could be similar to the gold ban that happened in 1934.

Image Source: Bitcoin News

Back then, gold became very popular as an asset, and it was banned and confiscated by the government. Even that could happen here. Note that we are not talking about BTC being fundamentally wrong as an asset but the governments view on it. Even the Big short investor Michael Burry pointed out that even if BTC could be a safe investment, it will not necessarily be safe from the authorities. And considering the government doesnt ban Bitcoin, seeing that there are too many businesses and individuals linked to it, there could be new laws and regulations for the same.

Ron Paul said that he thinks the crackdown could happen either by using a complete ban or tax policies. Whatever they plan on doing will not be great for Bitcoin and could ultimately lead to its downfall. And so that people think that the government is doing the right thing, they will just show public causes for the same.

The Indian government had a very strong want to ban Bitcoin, but they didnt. And I think this is partly because no other major democracy did it. But if the US bans BTC and other cryptocurrencies, there is a good chance that India and many other nations that see it as a threat will follow in its footsteps. Ultimately this could lead to a huge price drop, and people cashing out means that Bitcoin could run to the ground once again.

Do you think that The government is the threat to the ultimate growth of Bitcoin? And do you really think they could ban it? Let us know in the comments below. Also, if you found our content informative, do like it and share it with your friends.

Also, Read: Bitcoin payments are becoming increasingly common as more companies embrace it.

See the rest here:
"The government is the threat" says Ron Paul on Bitcoin - Techstory

The governments of the world have not fully sympathized with the idea of Bitcoin, some more than others, but it is still a minority. In the case of the United States, positions vary widely between individuals, but there is generally a dislike for security. Along those lines, former Congressman Ron Paul warned of a government crackdown on Bitcoin and safe-haven assets. He also mentioned that they may not be safe from government intervention. The government is the threat, he said, noting that they will crack down because they have the capacity to do so.

During an interview with Kitco News Michelle Makori, former presidential candidate Ron Paul shared his thoughts on the governments intervention in Bitcoin. Paul is a retired American author, physician, and politician. At the time, Paul was asked about the threat of possible gold confiscation or one form or another of government intervention. Do you expect possible tax changes or regulations that will prevent a capital flight to these assets that could be seen as an alternative to the dollar, like gold, like Bitcoin? He was asked.

In response, Ron Paul replied: Absolutely andThe government is the threat because it will crack down because it has the capacity to do so. He added: We tried. If you dont know where to start, just start with the Constitution, that might give you an idea of what a free society is.

Paul was also asked: What form of repression do you think could be taken when it comes to assets, such as gold and even Bitcoin, that are potentially at risk of government intervention with stronger taxes and regulations? The former congressman replied: I think all that can happen. He explained that either the tax system will be used, or the government will simply print more money, resulting in the devaluation of the currency.

He also opined: But they will do it for public relations reasons. They will have to show that they are imposing a high tax on the very rich because of the civil strife that is going on. On the infrastructure bill proposed by President Joe Biden, Paul expects it to be worse than average.

He opined: Most likely they do what those kinds of programs always do, they spend a lot of money, they are inefficient. They always cost more than they thought they should. Also, its based on a mystical belief that you shouldnt worry about the deficit everyone is in a dream.

Do you think Ron Paul is right to maintain his reservations about the actions of the US government with Bitcoin? Or do you think hes exaggerating about it? Tell us in the comments.

See the original post here:
Ron Paul: The government is the threat against Bitcoin Explica .co - Explica