Rand Paul Under Fire for Comments on Race

AP

Updated 4:10 p.m. Eastern

Now that the Tea Party-backed Rand Paul has the GOP nomination for Kentucky's open Senate seat, the media and his Democratic opponent are pouncing on his extreme libertarian views -- particularly with respect to his position on racism in private businesses and whether he would have supported the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

In an interview on NPR yesterday, host Robert Siegel asked Paul, the son of libertarian hero and former presidential candidate Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas), whether the Civil Rights Act went too far. Seigel noted that Paul has said in the past that the Americans with Disabilities Act was an overreach of the federal government.

"What I've always said is that I'm opposed to institutional racism, and I would've, had I've been alive at the time, I think, had the courage to march with Martin Luther King to overturn institutional racism, and I see no place in our society for institutional racism," Paul said.

However, he added:

"I think a lot of things could be handled locally. For example, I think that we should try to do everything we can to allow for people with disabilities and handicaps. You know, we do it in our office with wheelchair ramps and things like that. I think if you have a two-story office and you hire someone who's handicapped, it might be reasonable to let him have an office on the first floor rather than the government saying you have to have a $100,000 elevator. And I think when you get to the solutions like that, the more local the better, and the more common sense the decisions are, rather than having a federal government make those decisions."

Later on MSNBC's "Rachel Maddow Show" yesterday evening, Paul was pressed on the specific question of whether he thinks the government should prohibit private businesses from discriminating on the basis of race -- he refused to give a straight answer.

"Should we limit speech from people we find abhorrent?" Paul asked. "Should we limit racists from speaking? I don't want to be associated with those people, but I also don't want to limit their speech in any way, in the sense that we tolerate boorish and uncivilized behavior because that's one of the things that freedom requires... that we allow people to be boorish and uncivilized, but that doesn't mean we approve of it."

Rand Paul to Dems: Please Bring Obama to Kentucky
Paul: Tea Party Ready to "Flex Some Muscle"

Paul's views on the issue first came under scrutiny last month during an interview with the Louisville Courier-Journal.

"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," he said. "I don't like the idea of teling private business owners -- I abhor racism... I do believe in private ownership."

The Courier-Journal in an editorial said that Paul's remarks were "repulsive" and declared that it could not endorse either Republican in the Senate primary.

Paul's primary opponent, Kentucky Secretary of State Trey Grayson, attacked Paul's extreme views during the primary campaign, though that clearly did not deter enough voters from supporting Paul. Now that Paul is in a broader campaign, his Democratic opponent, Kentucky Attorney General Jack Conway, is using the same strategy.

"These are not the views of mainstream Kentuckians," Conway said about Paul's beliefs in an interview with Talking Points Memo.

UPDATE: Paul put out a statement clarifying his support for the Civil Rights Act -- though not addressing specifically whether he believes it should apply to private businesses.

Meanwhile, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs addressed the issue today, echoing the sentiment from Paul's statement that there's no need to revisit the legitimacy of the Civil Rights Act.

"I think the issues that many fought for in the 50's and 60's were settled a long time ago in landmark legislation, and discussions about whether or not you support those shouldn't have a place in our political dialogue in 2010," Gibbs told reporters.

Below is Paul's full statement:

"I believe we should work to end all racism in American society and staunchly defend the inherent rights of every person. I have clearly stated in prior interviews that I abhor racial discrimination and would have worked to end segregation. Even though this matter was settled when I was 2, and no serious people are seeking to revisit it except to score cheap political points, I unequivocally state that I will not support any efforts to repeal the Civil Rights Act of 1964."

"Let me be clear: I support the Civil Rights Act because I overwhelmingly agree with the intent of the legislation, which was to stop discrimination in the public sphere and halt the abhorrent practice of segregation and Jim Crow laws."

"As I have said in previous statements, sections of the Civil Rights Act were debated on Constitutional grounds when the legislation was passed. Those issues have been settled by federal courts in the intervening years."

"My opponent's statement on MSNBC Wednesday that I favor repeal of the Civil Rights Act was irresponsible and knowingly false. I hope he will correct the record and retract his claims."

"The issue of civil rights is one with a tortured history in this country. We have made great strides, but there is still work to be done to ensure the great promise of Liberty is granted to all Americans."

"This much is clear: The federal government has far overreached in its power grabs. Just look at the recent national healthcare schemes, which my opponent supports. The federal government, for the first time ever, is mandating that individuals purchase a product. The federal government is out of control, and those who love liberty and value individual and state's rights must stand up to it."

"These attacks prove one thing for certain: the liberal establishment is desperate to keep leaders like me out of office, and we are sure to hear more wild, dishonest smears during this campaign."

Results:

Roundup: All Winners and Losers
Specter Falls in Pa. Dem Primary to Joe Sestak
Rand Paul Wins Kentucky GOP Primary
Blanche Lincoln, Bill Halter Headed for Run-Off
Dem Wins Special Election for Murtha's Seat

Analysis:

The Surprises From Tuesday's Primaries
Specter's Loss Goes Beyond Anti-Incumbent Mood
Where do Tuesday's Winners Go from Here?
Who Had the Better Spin?

[paresh97]

the cheap cars used is very simple for us because it is a smart car.
=======================
<a href="http://www.sexyeditor.com" rel="dofollow">cheap used cars</a>

[seanettle]

Wall Street Money Funding Obama Bank and Cap-and-Trade Corruption?

April 20, 2010 by Jim Pfaff ? Comments (0)

Podcast: Play in new window

Wall Street money may be funding one of the biggest government corruption scams we?ve seen in decades. That?s not to say some level of corruption isn?t always wrapping itself around Washington, DC. But the implications of this developing scandal reaches deeply into the American economy and may amount to billions of dollars in a massive payback to the biggest Wall Street banks and law firms which pumped millions of dollars in to Barack Obama?s campaign.

Wall Street money accounted for more than $3.4 million in contributions to Barack Obama?s 2008 campaign. The story began last week when Barack Obama announced the administration?s push for ?financial reform.? With Obama?s major announcement in conjunction with Connecticut Senator Christopher Dodd?s Senate Banking Committee prepping to push the bill to the Senate floor, it seemed business as (presently) usual on Capitol Hill. Heritage Foundation came out quickly making the case that Dodd?s bill would institute a permanent TARP program where the big banks would receive preferential treatment from the federal government if they were at risk of failure. And they would have access to low-interest loans not available to smaller banks which won?t have bailout money available to them under the Dodd plan.

Then, suddenly on Friday, the Securities Exchange Commission (SEC) announced a lawsuit against Goldman Sachs for securities fraud. The coincidence seemed too perfect. Stir up anger in the American public with a sudden shot across the Wall Street bow. Major Wall Street firms aren?t lobbying against the Dodd bill because it gives them the ability to obtain easy and cheap loans backed by Dodd?s Too Big To Fail Act. And it?s becoming clear early on that Goldman Sachs would at worst be subject to a slap-on-the-wrist fine.

Suddenly Wall Street money connections to Barack Obama came back to the center of the debate on the Obama-Dodd reform push when Matt Drudge asked on his site, ?Will Obama return $994, 795 in campaign contrubutions from Goldman Sachs?? It turns out (via OpenSecrets.org) that Goldman Sachs employees gave that amount to Obama in 2008. It all seems like a shell game. Even Wall Street guru, CNBC host and Obama supporter, Jim Cramer, said that the case against Goldman Sachs is weak. So why all the fuss? Big Wall Street firms will directly benefit from the Dodd bill.

A quick review of Obama?s Wall Street money connections reveals how closely he is connected to these financial giants.

1. Goldman Sachs, J.P. Morgan Chase, Citibank and Morgan Stanley were all Top 20 contributing companies to Barack Obama and all will directly benefit from the Dodd bill. These contributed more that $3.4 million combined to Obama in 2008.
2. Top law firms with major lobbying presence in Washington, DC also were Top 20 major contributors to Obama?s campaign: Sidley Austin, WilmerHale, Skadden, Arps and Latham & Watkins. All of these firms do major business with Goldman Sachs, J.P. Morgan Chase and Citibank. These law firms contributed more than $2.1 million combined to Obama?s campaign.

But there is another connection which might be overlooked in all the discussion. Cap-and-Trade legislation will be introduced in the Senate on Monday with the support of the one Republican vote which will break a filibuster?Senator Lindsay Graham of South Carolina. Cap-and-Trade and the Dodd financial reform bill create a nexus of corruption which is beyond the pale.

First of all, Wall Street money is betting on the successful passage of Cap-and-Trade legislation. The current trading market for carbon credits is $300 billion. A recent article in Harpers Magazine points out that if the United States makes American companies submit to the carbon trading game, the market could be as much as $2 to $3 trillion. The very investment firms listed above are perfectly positioned to financially benefit from the expansion of these markets because they design these types of securities. And that means billions of dollars in fees for these banks after mere millions in donations.

But don?t forget the law firms listed above. They all have sizable Climate Change divisions which consult with investment firms and carbon trading firms which sell these securities. Again, tens of millions of dollars in legal fees are at stake with massive expansion in an international carbon trading scheme.

It?s a perfect storm. And it?s becoming more transparent that corrupt motives and political payback is behind these two bills. And please excuse the cynicism here as we ponder the massive payback to unions which received special treatment on their pensions and massive ownership stakes they obtained in the auto company bailouts.

I make the case for Obama?s corruption by Wall Street money in the attached podcast.

[esq777]

Is it really any surprise that the rising star of the Tea Party is a flat out bigot?

[hmmIwonder]

The Rand Paul who lies for you (today) will lie against you (tomorrow). He who believes in discrimination believes not in humanity; and he who believes not in humanity has no faith in human, or life.

[DSR_57]

I can't help it. I agree with him. People let emotions run how they think too much.

[rank_n_file]

Republican Rand Paul and the Tea Party mentality say Obama and media way to harsh on BP. Their strictly "pro-corp" deregulate mentality is what foist this horrific BP disaster on the public. Big Oil's Republican friends on Capitol Hill blocked oil spill liability increase! Current Maximum Spill Liability is a Joke at Only $75 million. Latest BP Spill Disaster Cleanup Estimate Soars To $3 Billion ... and is Rising Rapidly. Republicans Want U.S. Gov't & Taxpayers To Pay!! Someone has to foot the bill - the mess has to be cleaned up. Republicans Are NOT really against MASSIVE Gov't Spending When They Say Gov't Must Pay For BP. CONCLUSION - The Tea Party, Rand and Republicans favor "Corporate Welfare," MASSIVE Gov't spending to pay for "Corporate Welfare," Higher Taxes to pay for "Corporate Welfare," and absolutely no regulation to protect either the public or the environment from profiteering misanthropes like Wall Street and BP. In short, Republicans envision a Corporatocracy\Theocracy that is fundamentally unfit for animal, plant or human consumption. Can't wait to VOTE for them folks.

[John_Rational]

I agree with Mr. Paul that their should be universal access to public property, services, and jobs. Racists are horrified by this belief. But I disagree with his belief that Black private business owners have the right to hire only Black people, or refuse services to Asians. I do not believe that Black people have any right to form clubs that exclude Hispanic people. (See how racist you are. You thought that because he was white he was only referring to white business owners). Mr. Paul does believe Asian private business owners have the right to exclude Hispanics because he believes doing business in American society is a right. I believe it is a privilege. And I believe the government can rightfully demand equal access for all as part of the price for being granted this privilege.

A lot of you folks are stuck in the 60's. Come live in the present world with the rest of us. If you want to actually understand Mr. Paul (rather that just projecting your racial prejudices on him) read some Ayn Rand. His daddy didn't name him after her for nothing. And BTW Ayn Rand was fanatically anti-racist. If you believe otherwise it's because you believe what you've been told rather than what she wrote. I disagree with a lot of what she had to say, but her motives are not in question. It's time to stop vilifying everyone we disagree with. Why should anyone make an attempt to understand you when you make no honest attempt to understand them? Let's all make equal efforts to understand each other.

[soundloud]

What is wrong with this Rand Paul. He must tie a toilet roll around his neck, so that he can wipe his mouth, as every time he open the mouth, he poops. He blamed the government as unamerican when it blamed BP for the oil spill. He says the government put the boots down the throat of BP for the spill. What is he saying, should we worship BP for the spill and the tax payers pay the bill. He does not want the big government anyway, so we as people pay for it.
He may be thinking that we should become slaves to his favorite private enterprises, and his small government in washington so that they can rape us. This looney and the other looney Sarah Palin should be kept is asylum. They talk through their wrong opening.......

[OmegaWolf747]

I hope we get a libertarian government, as I am sick of government interfering with how we live our lives. End the War on Drugs and gun control!

[lmartink]

Another Tea-Bagging Racist Hater. What else is new?