Widgetized Section

Go to Admin » Appearance » Widgets » and move Gabfire Widget: Social into that MastheadOverlay zone

Rand Paul’s inbred racism

By DOUG THOMPSON
May 20, 2010

Rand Paul: A racist honkie in the woodpile?

Looks like Kentucky Republican Senatorial candidate and Tea Party darling Rand Paul inherited his father’s defense of racism in certain cases.

The younger Paul has said before that he believes restaurants and other private businesses should be allowed to discriminate against minorities if they want while claiming he supports civil rights in “institutional situations.”

Texas Congressman Ron Paul has often come under fire for past writings with racist overtones attributed to him that he now claims he didn’t write or authorize.

But his son isn’t backing away from past statements that he believes business should be allowed to do just about what ever it wants — even when it comes to discrimination against minorities, gays and the disabled.

After his win in the Kentucky Senate primary Tuesday, Paul did evade question after question about whether or not he would have voted for the Americans with Disabilities Act or the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

“I think it’s confusing in a lot of cases in what’s actually in the Civil Rights Case,” Paul said in an interview with National Public Radio. “A lot of things that were actually in the bill I’m actually in favor of I’m in favor of — everything with regards to ending institutional racism. So I think there’s a lot to be desired in the Civil Rights — and indeed the truth is, I haven’t read all through it, because it was passed 40 years ago and hadn’t been a real pressing issue on the campaign on whether I’m going to vote for the Civil Rights Act.”

During the campaign, Paul admitted to the Louisville Courier-Journal that he felt private businesses should be allowed to discriminate by race.

Notes the Courier-Journal:

The trouble with Dr. Paul is that despite his independent thinking, much of what he stands for is repulsive to people in the mainstream. For instance, he holds an unacceptable view of civil rights, saying that while the federal government can enforce integration of government jobs and facilities, private business people should be able to decide whether they want to serve black people, or gays, or any other minority group.

Maybe, like his father, Rand Paul will later disown the words, saying someone put them in his mouth without his knowledge or approval.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

29 Responses to Rand Paul’s inbred racism

  1. Deam

    May 20, 2010 at 7:26 am

    Controlled media has lost all credibility b/c of nonsense like that! People are awake now.

  2. TheNewTheory

    May 20, 2010 at 7:55 am

    Ron Paul and Rand Paul are not racist. Most people just don’t understand libertarian ideology and capitalism. It requires private property rights. I don’t believe the government should own my property or tell me what I can sell or who I will sell it to. It is my right to use my property as I please. The problem in the south is that they didn’t allow blacks to be on juries so there was no way to prosecute racist white people who were physically assaulting black people. Why must you always want to divide this nation. You won’t be able to divide and conquer this country. We libertarians will win this time.

  3. Brutus

    May 20, 2010 at 8:32 am

    This article is a prime example as to how debate has been dumbed down in this country. The logic displayed is not even grade school level. Further, this dilutes the meaning of the word “racist”, which is troubling for me as a black American.

    Rand Paul has a consistent view on individual liberty. He stands against federal legislation aimed at curbing drug use. He doesn’t approve of drug use, but given his consistent defense of individual liberty and non-violence he cannot approve of outlawing (or using violence against) drug users. Such does not make him a drug addict. The same goes for private discrimination, which is something that all businesses do in one way or another anyway. He doesn’t approve of it or support it. Opposition to regulating private business decisions on such ground does not make him or any other libertarian, a racist.

    Mr. Thompson’s logic would lead to a conclusion that Rand Paul is a junkie for opposing the War on Drugs. I find it quite amusing.

    With all of the issues that are relevant in 2010, it’s no wonder the country is going the way of the Titanic – we don’t talk about the iceberg ahead. We talk about the one that melted behind us 50 years ago.

  4. Almandine

    May 20, 2010 at 9:30 am

    That’s the problem with having libertarian principles… anti-government-control principles… reverence for individual sovereignty over collective correctness… demanding individual responsibility instead of applied force to remedy the ugly effects of racial discrimination… there’s no where to hide from the gutter journalism of sound bites and mischaracterization. Lack of due diligence or the politics of personal destruction?

    I ABHOR RACISM… says Rand Paul in the Louisville Courier-Journal interview:

    http://thinkprogress.org/2010/05/19/paul-civil-rights/

    Excerpt:

    PAUL: I like the Civil Rights Act in the sense that it ended discrimination in all public domains, and I’m all in favor of that.

    INTERVIEWER: But?

    PAUL: You had to ask me the “but.” I don’t like the idea of telling private business owners [individuals] — I ABHOR RACISM. I think it’s a bad business decision to exclude anybody from your restaurant—but, at the same time, I do believe in private ownership. But I absolutely think there should be no discrimination in anything that gets any public funding, and that’s most of what I think the Civil Rights Act was about in my mind.

    INTERVIEWER: But under your philosophy, it would be okay for Dr. King not to be served at the counter at Woolworths?

    PAUL: I would not go to that Woolworths, and I WOULD STAND UP IN MY COMMUNITY AND SAY THAT IT IS ABHORRENT, um, but, the hard part—and this is the hard part about believing in freedom—is, if you believe in the First Amendment, for example—you have too, for example, most good defenders of the First Amendment will believe in abhorrent groups standing up and saying awful things. . . . It’s the same way with other behaviors. In a free society, we will tolerate boorish people, who have abhorrent behavior.

    Freedom ??? We don’t need no stinking freedom.

    • griff

      May 20, 2010 at 10:28 am

      Well said. The Democrats have no substantial policy arguments so they need to play the race card constantly. Besides, so what if he’s racist? Every one is racist to a degree, and to deny that is to deny being human. What’s he going to do, reinstate slavery or something?

      • Mightymo

        May 20, 2010 at 11:12 am

        Oh brother, the things supposedly intelligent people come up with to justify their own lack of social skills.
        Since we are all nothing more than an animal and have animal characteristics, I suppose we should all be allowed to go out and kill the neighbor’s dog for dinner?
        Nothing worse than damn social regulations preventing us from doing things in the name of just being human!

        • griff

          May 20, 2010 at 1:32 pm

          Lack of social skills? It’s too bad liberals are so lacking in intelligence that they can’t fathom the idea of personal freedom. How do you equate racism with killing dogs? Are you suggesting that he would like to kill blacks and eat them for dinner?

  5. Guardhouse lawyer

    May 20, 2010 at 11:08 am

    You people are oh so precious, and oh so disingenuous. Out of one side of your mouths you say you want positive role models, upright family loving church goers who believe in monogamy. Out of the other side of your mouths you say of a potential Senator, “so what if he’s racist?”

    • Mightymo

      May 20, 2010 at 11:23 am

      I couldn’t agree more GL! The right is made up of two groups.

      One group is the “hypocritical on just about every measurement” church goers.

      The other group consists of people who aren’t church goers but support religion’s organized use of bigatry, prejudice, and anti-social ideology to support their own personal benefits and happiness at the expense of others outside their immediate group of choice.

      • SteveK

        May 21, 2010 at 2:20 pm

        GL and Mm, you are more interested in promoting the malevolent left than in open discussion. It’s interesting that you both apply generalizations to “church goers” the same way racists apply them to “other races.” Need I remind you that the fight to outlaw the international slave trade was begun by church goers in England (Wilberforce), abolitionists were church goers, and the civil rights movement was lead by church goers. People who promote bigotry and prejudice can call themselves Christians, but I can call myself President of the United States, that doesn’t make it true. Also, some evidence to back up your claims would help next time.
        Now for Mr. Paul’s comments. While not the most politically wise thing to say I give him credit for speaking his beliefs. Only the dumbest of businessmen would deny service to minorities. If I had a friend who was turned away because they were a minority I would take my business elsewhere. Has anyone noticed the boycott of Arizona businesses?

    • Almandine

      May 20, 2010 at 12:05 pm

      Another mischaracterization, eh?

      The potential Senator stands strongly for freedom and ABHORS racism… straight from his own mouth. That is a positive role model.

      This commenter said just that – not “so what if he’s racist?”

      Given the lack of any diligence, whatsoever, you clearly fall into the “politics of personal destruction” category. So much for principle.

    • griff

      May 20, 2010 at 1:26 pm

      I’ve never called for the need for any type of church-going role model. That would be an assumption, and a wrong one, on your part.

      My point is that one’s personal views on race or any of the other myriad social issues the Democrats love to harp on have no place in political dialog whatsoever, and has no bearing on one’s ability as a senator.

      Democrats don’t want any part of an argument based on important issues like deficits, spending, free markets and, least of all, individual freedom. On one side of the Democrats’ mouths we hear about unity and bipartisanship while all of their rhetoric is aimed at division along emotional social lines.

      The crux of Paul’s position on this issue is one of individual liberty and personal empowerment as opposed to government mandated morality. We seem to forget these days that the People have the power to change reality without the need for government interference.

      The People have the free will and the inherent right to speak out against such things, as well as the right to not support or do business with companies that pursue such policies. These days, in particular, with the internet and the rapid dissemination of information, companies wouldn’t be in business for very long with such widespread scrutiny. It’s just bad business, and I hardly think any one would be dumb enough to consider such actions.

      And to think that racism only exists on the Republican side is the epitome of naivete.

      • Almandine

        May 20, 2010 at 9:54 pm

        Well Griff, that fact that “The crux of Paul’s position on this issue is one of individual liberty and personal empowerment as opposed to government mandated morality.” is hardly the issue when the goal is political advantage, no matter the tactics.

        One thing is perfectly clear, though… Rand doesn’t have quite enough savvy yet to keep from giving openings to those who would twist his words to adversarial advantage. He’ll get there, and as people continue to awaken from the deep political sleep they’ve been in, the truth will be perfectly clear.

        Interesting thought, that “govt mandated morality” thing… what’s the prison census these days?

        • griff

          May 21, 2010 at 7:12 am

          Indeed, it seems America still isn’t up to the task of actually thinking beyond sound bites and simplistic spin.

          While we pretend we want honesty, transparency and accountability in Washington, all we really want is the comfortable and familiar ages-old divisive rhetoric; not true systemic change, but merely a changing of the guard.

          As we see with both father and son, the truth may set you free, but it won’t make you any friends in Washington.

  6. Brett

    May 20, 2010 at 12:41 pm

    This is another attempt at painting Tea Parties as racists or right wing. I have been a lifelong Democrat and am a Tea Partier. The Tea Party is a movement that spreads by word of mouth – because journalists cannot be trusted. We are actually moderate and practical. We have a Constitution and don’t believe that anyone should have special protections from the law based on profession, race, ethnicity or sex.

    I am also a card carrying member of the ACLU which has traditionally defended the Constitution and minorities – and now you are calling me a racist? You’re pathetic… Rand Paul not a racist and will win by a landslide.

    If you notice that Tea Parties are working against Republican incumbents and legislation (such as the Patriot Act) as well. We will change Washington and put America back on the track of prosperity. And Washington will know we did it… Extremists and special interest have too loud a mouth in this country. The real main stream is fed up.

    • Almandine

      May 21, 2010 at 9:59 am

      Worth repeating…

      The real main stream is fed up.

  7. woody188

    May 20, 2010 at 12:53 pm

    I’d prefer a nationalist/populist racist to an imperial globalist fascist at this point.

  8. Matt

    May 20, 2010 at 1:35 pm

    Should you be forced to allow anyone into your home, or should you be given discretion? Discrimination is such a broad term, and used in context other than race it becomes patently absurd. For instance by being a “practicing heterosexual” I’m discriminating against (with my body) half the population (namely: males). Now while the proportion of the men who are homosexual of the whole male population is small, this just means most other “practicing heterosexuals” are discriminating against a very small minority! Why is this allowed? And, in fact, when I get married to a woman I am discriminating against every single other human being on the planet! Shouldn’t this be ended?

    If you read Rand isn’t a racist and only people who are unable to look deeper than the surface will see him as one. Someone who is racist and/or discriminatory will be punished for it in a market. Were it not for the government interference in the South (Jim Crow Laws! They were LAWS people!) how many entrepreneurs would’ve rushed to the south for the opportunity to provide services to the disenfranchised minorities? I’d open up a busline in Montgomery serving everybody and buslines that didn’t do this would quickly lose business/profits and ability to expand their racism.

  9. kristin

    May 20, 2010 at 4:44 pm

    A business owner should be allowed to decide who he will and will not do business with. Just as someone who owns a home should be able to decide who they rent to. The feds have no business getting involved in these matters. Whatever happened to a person’s right of association?

  10. Ben

    May 20, 2010 at 5:09 pm

    Should the government have the power to force you to allow any one that wants to come to your private parties entrance?

    This is what it all boils down to. Businesses have every right to deny entrance to anyone for any reason. This is because they are privately owned. Government buildings on the other hand have to allow any one entrance because they are publicly owned. Because government enterprises are by definition not consensual in that they force payment from all, they should likewise be forced to do business with all. However a private enterprise which only operates by consensual voluntary interactions has every right to deny services to anyone for any reason. If a business owner does not like one or more groups of people no one has any right to force him to interact with them. But since not allowing large groups of people into your store is a terrible idea the free market will naturally weed out racist businesses

  11. thomas

    May 20, 2010 at 7:55 pm

    What an asinine smear piece. Saying that the federal government should not prevent businesses from being racist does not make one racist. Race isn’t even the issue. The issue is about the role of the government and where its authority ends and an individuals rights begin.

    This article completely misses this concept and reverts to grade school name calling behavior.

    When the ACLU defends the KKK’s right to be racist, nobody runs around calling the ACLU racist. Liberals understand the situation. However, replace KKK with business (which 80% of all businesses in the US are small business which means business is usually just a person) and then defend their right to be racist and suddenly you’re a racist.

    Morally bankrupt smearmeisters like Doug Thompson clearly understand the ACLU-KKK situation on its merits, so it’s clear they understand the a PAUL-RandomSmallBusinessGuy situation on its merits. That he insists on pretending it’s something other than what it is, is disgusting.

    Doug Thompson should apologize to Rand Paul and then be summarily fired for writing such untruths.

    • Almandine

      May 21, 2010 at 9:55 am

      Well he won’t be fired, since it’s his site, but his credibility wanes. There’s a grudge here that hasn’t been fully aired. Not that it matters much.

      • thomas

        May 21, 2010 at 12:03 pm

        That was kind of the joke, his smearing is so egregious he should fire himself out of personal shame.

  12. b mcclellan

    May 20, 2010 at 9:41 pm

    The whole deck is turned into 52 jokers when the race card is played, while the bum rush to be politically correct has rendered polite public conduct to pariah status the moment discrimination is charged.
    Some I have observed care not for rules of public behavior and push the limits in hopes of litigating an easier future sans the sweat of honest recognition of the rights of others.

    To put it simply, if you come into an establishment or any public venue and make an ass out of yourself it matters not if you are the polka dot alien from the planet Xe-dumbass, the proprietor should have the right of refusal of service.

    Pop said, a man, is a man, is a man, until he proves different. At that point it’s on that individual as to whether acceptance amongst his peers is offered, and no law can be instituted that mandates they have to accept his behavior or for that matter attempt to make up for the individuals obvious lack of upbringing by looking the other way.. Llamraf

    • Almandine

      May 21, 2010 at 8:22 am

      Pop also said you’re known by the company you keep, so choose your friends wisely.

      Have a good day, sir.

      • bmclellan

        May 21, 2010 at 9:49 am

        As long as my weed eater starts Al. Thanks..

  13. Ray

    May 22, 2010 at 11:16 pm

    I still can’t find where Doug called Rand a racist. He did say Rand defends racism through belief the government has no right in private business.
    “people have the power to etc” give me a break … sure they do but does it happen? why do people always seem to play the “magic” card and say QED

    • Guardhouse lawyer

      May 23, 2010 at 5:46 pm

      You might start by looking at the headline:

      Rand Paul’s inbred racism”

  14. mrbill

    May 25, 2010 at 3:25 pm

    Maybe Rand is following in Al Gores fathers footsteps…Als dad voted AGAINST the Civil Rights bill.