Rand Paul Attacked for Association with Constitution Party

TPID:

Progressive and liberal commentators have now begun to attack Rand Paul for his past association with the Constitution Party.  From the Progressive Fix:

I don’t know how long it’s going to take before the past views and associations of new Republican superstar Rand Paul all come to light, but he’s currently on track to serve as the living link between all sorts of older forms of radical conservatism and the contemporary Tea Party movement. Indeed, it appears that his Lester Maddox-ish instincts about the supremacy of private property rights could be the least of his problems. Now it transpires that just last year he was guest speaker at an event held by the Constitution Party.

From the Huffington Post:

 Amidst the hullaballoo over Republican Rand Paul’s upset victory in the Kentucky GOP primary for US Senate, one of the few journalists to raise the issue of Paul’s somewhat uncomfortable proximity to Christian Reconstructionism has been Alternet’s Adele Stan, who observes that Rand Paul’s father Ron Paul is personal friends with one of the bigger names in the Christian Reconstructionist movement, Howard Phillips, founder of the US Taxpayers Party — now re-branded as The Constitution Party. But there’s much more direct evidence tying Rand Paul to the Constitution Party.

42 thoughts on “Rand Paul Attacked for Association with Constitution Party

  1. Joey G. Dauben | The Palmer Post

    Kinky Friedman is speaking to Texas Libertarians at their convention next month, so is it safe to assume Kinky is a Libertarian? Bleh. Guest speakers happen everywhere, but speaking of the CP and Texas, doesn’t look like there’s any sort of party anymore now that the non-Secretary of State recognized chapter has “assumed” its disease role.

    (fyi: http://www.cptexas.us)

  2. spinnikerca

    Damn! Ron Paul has FRIENDS!!

    I’m SHOCKED, I say!!

    Just because no one likes people on the left, they find friends suspicious, I guess.

  3. joshie

    didn’t Cynthia Mckinney attend a press conference with the constitution party last year. She must be a racist!

  4. Cody Quirk

    How fucking stupid, just because he spoke at a CP event! And that stuff about the CP being theocratic is also complete BS as well. These morons would do Josef Goebbels proud.

  5. Gene Berkman

    Much like some of my right-wing friends, some on the left practice guilt-by-association-by-association.

    As a Libertarian, I have been favorable toward The Constitution Party because it opposes the Iraq War, the Patriot Act and socialism. And it favors free enterprise, even if not to the more rational extant that The Libertarian Party does.

    The bible-thumpers in The Constitution Party bother me of course, and some are worse than others. Rev. Rushdoony in his scholastic theology manner has adotped views which are plainly repulsive to any modern American, and I am sure most CP members don’t believe that slavery was justified or that homosexuals should be executed.

    Rand Paul probably spoke to The Minnesota CP for the same reason I have invited Gary Odom to speak to Libertarians in Riverside. We hate big government. But we don’t share the same views on everything, and most people in each of our parties do not share the views of the most extreme.

    As long as the left promotes activist government, and defends the activist government we have, they will use any association to attack those who would take power from them. Just at the Republican supporters of the military-industrial comlex will smear any antiwar activist.

  6. LibertarianBlue

    And it favors free enterprise
    ______________________-

    So you believe tariffs on trade are actually good for the free market?
    ___________________-

    I am sure most CP members don’t believe that slavery was justified or that homosexuals should be executed.

    __________________________

    Probably not on slavery but they really arent too kind on gays. Just because they dont believe they should be killed doesnt mean they like them

  7. Trent Hill

    “Godwin lives…”

    Godwin’s Law doesnt take long to show up in any argument.

  8. bingo

    MINNEAPOLIS – (The Borowitz Report) – In a sign of his increasing prominence in the so-called Tea Party movement, a new poll shows Kentucky senatorial candidate Rand Paul topping former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin among voters who describe themselves as morons.

    In the poll, conducted by the University of Minnesota’s Opinion Research Institute, 42% preferred Paul, 36% preferred Palin, and the remaining 22% were unsure what the word “prefer” meant.

    According to Davis Logsdon, who supervised the poll for the University of Minnesota, Paul’s surging popularity among morons is bad news for Palin, who previously had a lock on that important constituency.

    “I never thought I’d say that, but if Palin is going to stay competitive with Paul, she’s going to have to start dumbing down her message.”

  9. Cody Quirk

    The bible-thumpers in The Constitution Party bother me of course, and some are worse than others.

    = However they are a small and powerless minority in the CP.

    Rev. Rushdoony in his scholastic theology manner has adotped views which are plainly repulsive to any modern American, and I am sure most CP members don’t believe that slavery was justified or that homosexuals should be executed.

    = Exactly; such views might be held by a small number of Constitutionalists that don’t have any significant positions in the national Party or the state affiliates, but such views are repulsive and completely based on distorted views & interpretations of the Bible. These views are abhorred by the solid majority of Constitutionalists, including me.

  10. Gene Berkman

    @ #9 – “So you believe tariffs on trade are actually good for the free market?”

    NO – that is why I am a Libertarian, not a member of The Constitution Party

    “…they really arent too kind on gays…” Agreed, and that is why I am a Libertarian, not a member of The Constitution Party.

    But we need allies against the pro-government parties, and it is important to defend people against demonization based on unjustified exaggeration, casual association and open ideological agendas.

  11. d.eris

    “But we need allies against the pro-government parties”

    Your best allies against “pro-government” parties would probably be the anarchists.

  12. George Tatevosyan

    How about that Rand Paul?!? I must admit, the tone of the attacks in the tv-land blab-o-sphere has been as DESPERATE as I haven’t seen, since the Nader 2000 campaign. Anyone who can get that much negative op-ed time from the establishment media, right after a landslide win – must be doing something right! If I see another talking head bashing this man on tv, I am going to send him a check for the general election, just out of sympathy (I really don’t agree on much of anything with him, other than the basic Bill of Rights type stuff).

  13. Joey G. Dauben | The Palmer Post

    The Constitution Party believes in punishment for viewing/watching/participating in pornography, that is a fact.

    If you interchanged “Constitution” with “Protestant Christian,” and then just started calling them the Protestant Christian Party, it’d be the same thing.

  14. Gene Berkman

    @ 14 -yes, I work with anarchists too. I have a selection of anarchist books for sale in my bookshop, along with libertarian, free market & conservative books.

  15. Trent Hill

    “The Constitution Party believes in punishment for viewing/watching/participating in pornography, that is a fact. ”

    This is NOT a fact, it’s a blatant lie. Joey, who fashions himself a journalist, ought to document such “facts”. The CP does want to ban the creation of pornography, but this is nowhere near saying they want to punish individuals for viewing, watching, participating in, etc. They may in fact want that, but it’s never been a stated part of their platform and I’ve never heard a single Constitution arty candidate or officer speak to that.

  16. C James Madison

    Regarding the headline to this story, specifically the word “attacked”, this may be great news, if I correctly quote Mahatma Ghandi: “First they ignore you. Then they mock you. Then they attack you. Then you win.”

  17. Trent Hill

    C. James Madison,

    Except for all the candidate, committees, and parties who have simply been ignored. Or ignored then attacked. Or ignored, attacks, and then mocked, etc. Winning is not a guarantee.

  18. Gina

    Well, Knowing that Chelene Nightingale for governor 2010 CONSTITUTION PARTY is very proud of her statis as REBEL…I am sure she embraces this article and says…YES this is what we believe….”like it or lump it!” Well, it may not be everyones “cup of tea.” But, I am sure she will embrace and defend the constitution parties…sentitments to a “T”…

  19. Britagolovoy Moskvich

    Rand Paul is 100% correct. Best American politician. And he is right about the right to discriminate. Kudos!

  20. paulie Post author

    “Moscow Skinhead” @25 is inadvertently correct (at least on the last part).

    Any business I own should be free to discriminate against him and his shaika.

    Segregation was enforced by state governments because it had to be in order to survive. Left alone, commerce is the natural avenue to overcoming prejudice.

    On the flip side, a government big enough to give you what you want (in this case – prorection from private discrimination) is big enough to give you what you don’t want:

    Exhibit one:

    http://www.lewrockwell.com/grigg/grigg-w148.html

    Exhibit two:

  21. Kentucky Knights of the Ku Klux Klan

    We are proud of Rand Paul!

    He has our votes and support. We will be canvassing and donating.

    Noble Order of White Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, Kentucky

  22. Don Grundmann

    ” The Constitution Party believes in punishment for viewing/watching/participating in pornography, that is a fact.”

    Response – This is total B.S. The CP believes in the 1st Amendment. It recognizes that pornography is sick, degrades women, and ( increasingly ) is used as a vehicle to encourage sex attacks against children and other degeneracies. But if you are sick and want to watch it the CP recognizes that you have a 1st Amendment right to do so.

    Don J. Grundmann, D.C. Vice-Chairman American Independent Party, California branch of the Constitution Party

  23. blanco

    The issues Rand Paul should campaign on:

    The threat of Islamic terrorism and the rise of Islamic extremism around the world.

    The flood/invasion of illegal aliens taking away American jobs which will cause white people to be a minority in this country soon…has anyone wondered what will happen then?

    Abortion of white babies, which is contributing to this disturbing demographic trend if it is not outlawed.

    Corporations outsourcing American jobs – where is the paycheck for the white working class man going to come home to feed his family?

    The war on Christianity in our schools, courthouses, etc., and the war on Christmas.

    The Zionist bankers and their control of the money supply.

    The rising economic and military threat posed by China.

    The flood of dope on our streets and the leniency of the police and courts toward non-white street thugs.

    NAFTA/GATT/WTO/United Nations threats to American sovereignty.

    Multiculturalist brainwashing of our children.

    Filthy garbage of the worst imaginable sort being allowed in the movies, TV and on the radio, producing generations of degenerates.

    Feminization of the American male through the promotion of feminism and normalization of sodomy as a “lifestyle” – this can’t be helping our demographic trends! Before long this country will look like a cross between Mexico, Zimbabwe, Pakistan and Gomorrah if we don’t do something.

    While Wall Street is partying, the Zionist bankers are closing our factories and foreclosing on our farms.

    Will Rand Paul or any of our white race’s leaders will rise up to address these issues?

    Will we do something before it’s too late?

  24. Gene Berkman

    Blanco – I don’t think Rand Paul is the candidate for you.

    Maybe you think David Duke is the type of Uebermensch the white race needs. But if he bleaches the blond die out of his hair, he does not look so Aryan.

  25. Carolyn Marbry

    #31: “Abortion of white babies, which is contributing to this disturbing demographic trend if it is not outlawed.”

    Because life is only sacred if it’s white… or because you think only minority women should have a choice?

  26. Wrong, Berkman

    http://crooksandliars.com/karoli/rand-pauls-base-neo-nazis-white-supremacist

    * Right-wing extremism

    Rand Paul’s base: Racists or Corporations or both?
    By karoli Monday May 24, 2010 6:25pm

    Rand Paul has spent the better part of a week ducking accusations that he harbors racist beliefs. By burying his racial attitudes under a veneer of libertarianism, he has almost convinced our worthless mainstream media that it’s possible to believe businesses should deny people the right to enter their establishment (and presumably their workforce) based upon their race, religion, gender or sexual orientation.

    It isn’t difficult for me to understand how Rand Paul can hang his hat on libertarian beliefs until they don’t fit the narrative, but it’s surely another case of whitewashed truthiness on the part of the press.

    Via Daily Kos (MinistryofTruth):

    Strike #1. Rand Paul’s campaign spokesperson Chris Hightower was fired for posting “Happy Nigger day” with Lynching pics at Facebook along with posts describing how he liked to go to the local mall in KKK garb.

    Strike #2. On The Rachel Maddow’s Show and NPR Rand Paul, repeatedly, objects to Title II of the Civil Rights Act, stating that Businesses should be able to discriminate based on race. Upon learning of the controversy he had stirred by airing his pro discrimination views, he backtracks and goes into hiding/damage control.

    And now Strike #3. Rand Paul has received funds and promotion from white supremacists, Neo-Nazi’s and KKK leadership via Stormfront.org

    Here’s a screenshot of Stormfront.org head Don Black’s tweet calling for Twitter followers to support Rand Paul’s money bomb in March:

    Screen shot 2010-05-24 at 11_75214.50.49 AM.png

    As Dave Niewert pointed out last week, the apple hasn’t fallen far from the tree, and now that seed has grown into the Kentucky choice for the Republican party’s Senatorial candidate.

    Corporations were strong supporters of Rand Paul, especially toward the end of the primary race

    Corporate PACs love Rand Paul too. Lots of last-minute corporate donations fell his way, in addition to some big money in earlier days. The medical establishment, insurance companies, telecommunications, defense industries, all the standard Republican donors were present and accounted for in Paul’s campaign disclosures.

    It’s easier to argue a market-based justification for their support than it is for Neo-Nazis, however.

    It’s time for Republicans to own their racist wing

    All Republicans are not racists, but some Republicans are racists, and one way to identify those who are is by their attitudes, beliefs, public statements, associations, and public support. Rand Paul descends from the John Birch Society right-wing elite bear-hugged by his father in plain view of anyone who cares to look. Here are a few examples:

    * Little Green Footballs has photos of Ron Paul posing with Stormfront’s leader Don Black (author of the tweet pictured above), and his son Derek Black (who has actually been elected to office in Florida, by the way) at the 2007 Values Voters Conference. They look pretty friendly in those photos.
    * This post on the Campaign for Liberty website in Rand Paul’s defense. Campaign for Liberty is the Ron Paul organization created for his 2008 run for the Presidency, which now serves as a libertarian/Tea Party clearinghouse for the ultra-right parading as libertarians. Here’s their defense of Paul’s view of the Civil Rights Act:

    How would things have turned out if businesses had been left free to discriminate? Well, does anyone today get into an uproar over the fact that people are free to discriminate in their homes? And yes, people get into an uproar over a Nazi march in Skokie, just as they get upset over the periodic burning of the flag, but how many people lose sleep over the fact that people have such rights?

    The same thing would have happened if private businesses had been left free to discriminate. In fact, the likelihood is that the bigoted businesses would slowly but surely have lost market share to businesses that would sell to everyone, especially given the power of social ostracism, boycotts, moral condemnation, and the like.

    * Stormfront members’ own acknowledgement that Rand Paul’s walkback of his original statements on the Civil Rights Act was necessary to get elected. Member WhiteRights put it all in perspective:

    We’re in a transitional period right now guys. We can’t just break out the SS uniforms and start goose-stepping our way into power right now.

    * Denunciation of Neo-Nazis on market-based principles, as Baby Paul does in the video at the top, is just patently absurd intellectually dishonest nonsense intended to mask the truth. He denies that he sympathizes with Nazis (I don’t believe he is a Nazi either, but I do personally believe he holds white supremacist views based upon his reply) Even Reason Magazine acknowledges the difference between actions of the state and actions of the markets, noting markets would not have likely to corrected the Jim Crow actions of the state on their own.

    What about freedom of speech? Citizens United, all that?

    Neo-Nazis have just as much right as anyone else to contribute to campaigns. I certainly do not begrudge them. It is their right to support candidates who they believe share their views, goals, and will represent them. Clearly, the expectation is for their guy to do right by them when he gets there, and frankly, there’s no reason for them to doubt that, based on the evidence.

    However, it is equally fair for candidates who receive those funds to come under scrutiny for accepting (and keeping) contributions from those groups, particularly when the candidate in question has plainly stated that he would support modifications to the Civil Rights Act which would exempt businesses from a requirement to treat everyone equally.

    Now, there are some who argue that it’s difficult to know who actually associated with Stormfront and gave to Paul’s campaign. Perhaps. However, when Ron Paul was confronted with the very same issue and indisputable evidence as to the source of a $500 contribution, he decided to keep it, saying if they chose to ‘waste their money’ on his campaign, he’d spend it in the name of liberty. Yet, we’ve see what the Pauls believe liberty is.

    Liberty for them is the right for a business owner to refuse people from based on their race, religion, sexual orientation, or gender.

    Liberty for them is living by the whim of the ‘free market.’

    Liberty for them means property rights trump human rights.

    Call it whatever you want. There is still a standing apologetic for discriminatory practice underneath the libertarian banner. Now Republicans, and their corporate courtiers own it. There’s clear evidence of racism in Arizona’s state legislature, in Rand Paul’s beliefs about civil rights and the Civil Rights Act, in the signs held high at tea party rallies, in Sarah Palin’s dog whistles, and in Republicans’ cynical injection of race and gender-based wedge issues to their political campaigns.

    There’s a name for it, but that name isn’t liberty.

  27. Glen Roberts

    Rand Paul a boy not a man. Spouts his father’s views…and follows the racist “Constitution party.” The rabid Tea-baggers think they have a leader who will “bring back the USA” to its whole “whiteness.” I do believe that the tea-party is just a cloak for whites to hide their fears of being over-run by other races. They are hateful war mongers! They are not peace loving people. They are inept shrinking gonad baby boomers…who were never allowed to rebel against mommy and daddy…and have decided to hang their dirty caps on this psuedo movement. Rand paul…a silver-spoon fed…dupe for the extremists.

  28. We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children

    What we must fight for is to safeguard the existence and reproduction of our race and our people, the sustenance of our children and the purity of our blood, the freedom and independence of the fatherland, so that our people may mature for the fulfillment of the mission allotted it by the creator of the universe. Every thought and every idea, every doctrine and all knowledge, must serve this purpose. And everything must be examined from this point of view and used or rejected according to its utility.
    -ADOLF HITLER

    HEIL HITLER! HEIL RAND PAUL! KKK ALL THE WAY! SIEG HEIL – HAIL VICTORY FOR RAND PAUL IN NOVEMBER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  29. Germans are stupid

    I am a german and I will tell you one thing….Germans like you are a-holes….ignorant baiters…You want to bait people…but, really you are very funny….like a little child….are you smearing your “poo poo” on the wall now? Little baby boy…with little baby boy weiner….Did mama not breast feed you…wait you were raised by a monkey…..yes, your mother was a monkey….she threw you to the wolves because you were so ugly…poor baby boy….alone in the woods only his poo…to keep him happy…go look for your mommy…..maybe she is at a zoo….go look…..go look…..:)

  30. Classically Liberal

    http://freestudents.blogspot.com/2010/05/rand-paul-and-ayn-rand-not-peas-from.html

    One of the tragedies from the Ron Paul movement has been the association of libertarianism with very unlibertarian sentiments. Before Rand Paul picked up his father’s sullied mantle I was talking with someone who had been a top official in the Liberal Democratic Party at a dinner in London. Some of the people were libertarians who thought the Paulites were a good thing. I pointed out how our ideas were being associated with ideas that were most clearly not libertarian. The Lib Dem guy made the point about “brand contamination.” When someone becomes associated with other things, a tad bit more nefarious and questionable, the good aspects of the brand become contaminated.

    That is what Ron Paul did to libertarianism—associating it with anti-immigrant sentiments, neo-Confederate politics, Birch Society conspiracy nonsense, state’s rights, and racism, to name a few. Ron Paul has always been a conservative, not a libertarian—as his vote to keep sodomy a crime in D.C., showed. And Rand Paul is more of the same, but worse.

    So who gets blamed for Rand Paul’s views? Libertarians do. Sam Tanenhaus referred to Rand Paul’s controversial statements with a New York Times piece entitled: “Rand Paul and the Perils of Textbook Libertarianism.” That would imply that Rand Paul is a textbook libertarian when he is no such thing. He has less right to claim libertarianism than does his father.

    So I wanted to clear up a few points. Not only isn’t Rand Paul a libertarian, as I have asserted before, but he isn’t even named after Ayn Rand—as some of his worshippers and detractors all seem to assume. Paul has clarified it himself but that doesn’t stop the morons, on both Left and Right, from saying otherwise. His full name is Randal Paul and Rand is merely an abbreviation of his first name, not homage to Ayn Rand.

    And, if it had been homage to Rand, I can assure you she wouldn’t have been honored. Rand refused to support candidates if they campaigned against abortion. She refused to support Reagan and stated his opposition to abortion as a reason, and Reagan was much more moderate on the issue than Paul, who wouldn’t even allow a woman to abort in order to save her own life. My friend Barbara Branden reports: “When I last saw Rand in 1981, she told me that she was opposed to Reagan because she considered him a typical conservative in his attempt to link politics and religion. About his anti-abortion view, she said: ‘A man who does not believe in a woman’s right to her own body, does not believe in human rights.'”

    Paul, according to his own site, had the endorsement of the far-Right theocratic group, Concerned Women for America, and his site says that his “socially conservative views have earned the respect and trust of church leaders across Kentucky.” Consider how Rand saw Reagan and his friendly relations with the Moral Majority:

    The appalling disgrace of his administration is his connection with the so-called “Moral Majority” and sundry other TV religionists, who are struggling—apparently with his approval—to take us back to the Middle Ages, via the unconstitutional union of religion and politics.

    Rand said Reagan was trying to “arouse the country by some sort of inspirational appeal. He is right in thinking that the country needs an inspirational element. But he will not find it in the God-Family-Tradition swamp.” So while Randal Paul was sucking up to the social conservative religionists, Ayn Rand had called their ideology a “swamp” and wanted nothing to do with them.

    Previously I mentioned Rand’s views on the issue of state’s rights, which is vastly different than Randal Paul’s views. While social conservatives like the two Pauls, Wayne Allen Root, Bob Barr and others, argue for state’s rights, Ayn Rand said that people don’t understand what it means She argued it was merely a “division of power between local and national authorities” and did “not grant to a state government an unlimited arbitrary power over its citizens or the privilege of abrogating the citizens’ individual rights.” As Rand saw it state’s rights would justify the violation of separation of church and state at the state level, as Ron Paul and other conservatives have said.

    George Wallace used the state’s right mantra to justify his racist campaigns for political office. Rand noted that Wallace was NOT “a defender of individual rights, but merely of state’s rights—which is far from being the same thing.” She said Wallace’s denunciation of big government was one that merely wanted to replace federal tyranny with local tyranny, that all Wallace wanted was “to place the same unlimited, arbitrary power in the hands of many little governments.” This is also true of the paleo-conservatives pretending to be libertarians: Randal and Ron Paul being the prime examples.

    Libertarian blogger Timothy Lee noticed that Randal Paul’s “libertarianism” “is curiously one-sided.” Lee notes that Paul’s view “is far from uncompromising” and points to Paul’s rabid anti-immigration stands, his demand that anyone who is a citizen of a “rogue nation” be denied travel visas and that he supports “holding suspects indefinitely without trial at GITMO,” as evidence. He also lists Paul’s opposition to marriage equality, his refusal to talk about the war on drugs, or free trade as areas of concern. Lee writes:

    Paul is an uncompromising defender of the rights of business owners to decide who will sit at their lunch counters. But Paul apparently sees no problem with deploying the power of the state to stop private business owners from hiring undocumented workers. Nor does he seem to care very much about business owners’ freedom to do business with the millions of non-terrorists who live in “rogue nations.” Or, for that matter, the freedom of a gay business owner to marry the person he loves. There’s a principle at work here, all right, but I don’t think it has very much to do with limited government.

    Randal Paul got caught by his own position in defense of private discrimination. And while I agree with freedom of association as a right, it is very difficult, if not impossible to defend those rights if you yourself advocate violating those rights in numerous ways. Social conservatives, like Paul, are not advocates of individual rights, but proponents of social order and state control in the name of God, family, tradition, morality and religion. They are sometimes opponents of state intervention and sometimes advocates of it. Their lack of consistency means it is easy to show them up as hypocrites, advocating one set of laws for one group of people and another set for other, less favored, groups.

    As a libertarian I would say this lack of consistency plagues both Progressives and Conservatives. Which is why libertarians are neither, but hold the radical middle ground where rights are applied consistently. Randal Paul, like his father doesn’t support equality of rights for gay people. So that meant he could not answer Rachel Maddow well when she nailed him on discrimination. He stuttered, stumbled, tried to evade, and basically made his position look bad. He tried to claim libertarian principles, but not being a consistent libertarian made that difficult. So how would I have responded to Maddow, in the same circumstances? Here is my answer:

    Rachel, that’s a good question and is the answer is more complex that a lot of people want to believe. For instance, why shouldn’t a “black student’s union” have the right to admit only black students? And doesn’t it make sense that with the sort of sexual harassment that many women have experienced that a lesbian bar might rationally want to exclude straight men as patrons or employees?

    Much of the struggle for human rights, especially for those oppressed and discriminated against, has revolved around the freedom to associate. With the right to freely associate comes the right to not associate, which is what that lesbian bar would be doing. Government is a very blunt tool, and when the law applies to private associations it does so without taking into account, nor can it take into account, the nuances which may well justify the reluctance for some people to associate with others.

    Where there is private discrimination, that is irrational and prejudicial, such as the refusal of some restaurants to serve black patrons, I think it important that community leaders, people like yourself, all decent people, stand up and protest, boycott, picket, leaflet and force a change in policy. And there are many examples of that happening.

    Government is such a blunt tool to use that it can’t distinguish between the first kind of discrimination and the second kind. It destroys both with the same law. Thus we could get bizarre things like a gay resort, with somewhat liberal standards on nudity or public displays of sexuality, being sued for discriminating against heterosexual families with children. Government does a bad job of telling the differences and thus tends to ban both.

    Most people, like yourself, clearly can see the differences. A Christian church that refused to perform Jewish weddings doesn’t bother most people. A restaurant that refuses to serve black customers does. The church is only exempt because of the First Amendment, and thus safe from such laws. But the lesbian bar I mentioned is not. The community is free to distinguish between these different forms of discrimination and routinely does so. They will boycott and protest against the restaurant but no one bats an eye at religious discrimination by churches.

    What is critical to remember is that state power has more often been used to force discrimination than to forbid it. The South was not a free society and had legislation mandating bigotry and prejudicial policies. When local government violates the rights of people, it is fit and proper for federal legislation to prevent that. Government is a dangerous weapon and is more likely to be used to suppress rights.

    The great civil rights battle of today, Rachel, is that of marriage equality.
    Look at the battle line. All across the country private businesses treat their gay employees and customers with respect, sure some don’t, but they are not the dominant trend by any means, but the exception. As a gay woman you surely know this.

    Gay relationships are recognized by employers who grant their gay employees the same rights as other employees. Where is the problem? Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell — government mandated discrimination. The Defense of Marriage Act — government mandated discrimination. Immigration laws exist that refuse to recognize gay couples. That is state bigotry, not private. We have state mandated discrimination in the tax codes, marriage laws, custody laws, even in hospital visitation rights.

    So, Rachel, here is my offer, based on my principles. Let us abolish all government mandated discrimination, abolish those laws, reform the system to see full equality of rights for all. Compared to the nationwide massive violations of rights that government is doing today, the issue of private discrimination is tiny. Not only is the impact of state discrimination far more destructive but it is much harder to change. Many a business has suddenly switched sides due to a boycott, but you can’t boycott government. In addition, much of the private prejudices collapse when government-sanctioned bigotry is abolished.

    So, when it comes to my preferences, I prefer the private versus governmental approach. It is easier to wipe out bigotry when privately practiced then when enforced by law. Even with a so-called “friend” in the White House look at the meager progress gay and lesbian people have made with their just demands. It is far easier to end private discrimination than state-enforced bigotry.

    A government that routinely discriminates against tens of millions of Americans, due to their sexual orientation, or gender identity, is not a trust-worthy advocate for individual rights. I would rather leave this to the common sense of the people, using proven strategies like boycotts and picket lines, to eradicate irrational prejudice while leaving the woman’s bar alone, as I suspect the case would be.

    My answer may not entirely satisfy Maddow, but it would go a long way toward addressing her concerns and showing the good intentions of libertarians toward minorities. So why didn’t Randall Paul say this? Why didn’t he defend well the libertarian position? Because he couldn’t, he doesn’t believe in it.

  31. Antiwar

    http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2010/05/23/rand-pauls-problem-and-ours/

    I have to say that I’ve held off commenting on the subject of Rand’s candidacy quite deliberately, because I wanted to give him the benefit of every doubt. I wasn’t too alarmed, at first, when he differed from his father on the subject of Guantanamo and the question of whether to give “enemy combatants” a trial before we lock them up forever – I didn’t and don’t agree, but plenty of anti-interventionists I respect, such as Pat Buchanan, would take Rand’s side in that debate, and so I gave him a pass.

    He did an interview with Antiwar.com, in which he stated some mildly anti-interventionist sentiments, coming out against the “long term” occupation of Afghanistan. As one commenter on the thread put it, however, “Not in favor of long-term occupation of Iraq or Afghanistan? What does he think the situation is right now?” That same perceptive commenter presciently added: “I’m not a Ron Paul fan, but from this interview, it seems like Rand Paul is no Ron Paul.”

    In any case, Trey Grayson, his opponent in the Republican primary, made a big issue of his even appearing on the radio with those “leftist” radicals at Antiwar.com – Ha! If only they knew! – and ran television ads juxtaposing Rand’s comments to those of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. To no avail, however, and Rand smashed Grayson with a resounding 60 percent of the vote – a clear signal that the neocon foreign policy of invading the world has no resonance anymore, not even in a GOP primary in a solidly Republican state.

    Yet Rand drew a different conclusion from the election results, because he began backtracking immediately, even before election day, even as the polls showed Grayson’s attacks were having no effect. Rand came out in favor of economic sanctions on Iran, and further opined:

    “I do see Iran as a threat to the stability of the Middle East… Recently, President Obama took nuclear weapons off the table in certain circumstances, and I think that’s a mistake. I think it’s reckless to take them out of the equation.”

    Correct me if I’m wrong, but that sounds to me like he’s in favor – given the right circumstances – of nuking Iran. This is something that not even the wildest-eyed neocon has seriously proposed. That an alleged “libertarian” could mouth those words is appalling, but hardly surprising: it just means that, in a world where even a loudmouthed statist like Bill Maher can claim to be a “libertarian,” the word has lost all meaning. No wonder Bill Kristol wants to give the kid a break.

    I don’t even want to go into the rest of his symptoms of foot-in-mouth disease, but Rand’s characterization of the President as “anti-American” for holding BP responsible for the consequences of the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico cannot go unremarked. To begin with, as Chris Hayes pointed out in his excellent discussion of the issue while filling in for Maddow, the oil companies are one of the biggest examples of the sort of crony capitalism libertarians are supposed to abhor. As the recipients of numerous subsidies and government subventions, the oil companies are also the beneficiaries of a legislated cap [.pdf] on damages which limits their liability. In a free market, it’s likely they couldn’t drill off the Florida coast at all because they couldn’t afford the insurance.

    As in the case of all the other governmental bodies and agencies we have that are supposed to “oversee” the activities of the corporate world, the overseers have been subjected to a strategy of “regulatory capture.” They’re in bed – literally – with the very companies they are supposed to be overseeing.

    It’s true that Rand got his start in the libertarian movement, as a supporter of and spokesman for his father, but good sense may not be hereditary, and, in any case, Paul the younger seems not to have inherited his father’s backbone. Can you imagine Rand standing up to the bully Rudy Giuliani – or even daring to raise the issue that motivated Giuliani’s grandstanding outburst? I can’t.

    Instead, what we have seen is a sustained attempt by Rand to transform libertarianism into “constitutional” conservatism: when asked to describe his politics, Rand regularly disdains the libertarian label and avers that he’s a “constitutional conservative.” You know, as opposed to those unconstitutional conservatives – the sort who want to give the President the power to suspend habeas corpus, lock up “enemy combatants” in Guantanamo, and throw away the key.

    What we should do is simply take Rand at his word, in this instance, and recognize that he is indeed no libertarian. This will relieve him of being in the embarrassing position of having to explain and defend our arcane canons, and lift from his shoulders the burden of having to translate theory into a political program that makes sense for today. Clearly, he’s not up to the task, and, in any event – not being a libertarian – he’s even more clearly not interested in taking on the job.

    He is interested, however, is gaining as much support for his candidacy nationwide as he can. That is how he got to where he is today, after all: by appealing to his father’s constituency for financial and other forms of support. If he hopes this support will be ongoing, he may be in for a shock: having the right last name will only get him so far with libertarians. He has got to learn to live up to his father’s good name, and I have a suggestion as to how he might make a good start.

    Since he’s spent so much time apologizing for, and running away from, his own comments – now claiming that he would have voted for the 1964 Civil Rights Act – why doesn’t he spend a few moments backtracking from his morally reprehensible refusal to take nuking Iran “out of the equation”? Now that’s something he really ought to get down on his hands and knees and beg forgiveness for – and maybe (just maybe!) libertarians will think about supporting him. Until that apology – or “clarification” – is forthcoming, I wouldn’t give Rand Paul the time of day.

  32. And on the West Coast ????????? .......... Lake

    Cody Quirk // May 25, 2010:
    “………..the CP has two African-American State Chairs …………”!

    [Lake: remember folks this is a guy whom claimed that the California Constitution Party exists! It does not! It never has!]

    [Mister Quirk also derided Lake on stating that entities out side of Texas and California and what ever third state left in 2008 were unhappy and considering disaffiliation! Then he correctly identified the states that he implied were not unhappy with national CP. On going and total liar!]

    [Quirk Boy is the type of guy to say ‘I did not do any thing wrong. But I am sorry and will not do it again ………….”]

    [The Democans and Republicrats are laughing and laughing and laughing ………..]

  33. patriotic dream

    markham Robinson for governor 2010 AIP california….June 8th…primary thank you

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *