Click here to go directly to:
Updates ; Take Action ; Comments ; HOME

Rand Paul, Credit:  Gage Skidmore

  Maddow Part 1 ( 10:58 )                                                     Maddow Part 2 ( 9:18 )

                                   
   Russia Today ( 12:09 )                                                    NAACP  vs  Rand Paul ( 5:22)

Whether you love him or hate him, political newcomer Rand Paul, one of the very few politicians who is not financially beholden to any special interest groups, is energizing the voters.

Paul ( the son of former presidential candidate U.S. Rep. Ron Paul ) recently defeated Republican Trey Grayson in the party’s primary for U.S. Senate. Some political pundits had closely watched this race, as they considered it to be a harbinger of the tea party movement’s strength.

Sarah Palin explains why she recently endorsed Dr. Rand Paul as the Republican Senate nominee from Kentucky:

..nobody’s ever going to find a perfect candidate. There are things that I don’t agree with Rand Paul and yet his domestic policies, for the most part, I do agree with. He wants limited government. He wants the feds to start taking their hands off states’ issues

And I respect that and I’m proud to support him, again, never finding a perfect candidate,” she said. “No doubt, he disagrees with me on a whole lot of issues, but … proud to support him and others whom I can believe in.

Glen Ford, Executive Editor of Black Agenda Report (BAR) explains how “Rachel Maddow exposed the truth about Rand Paul’s racism and how the Tea Party movement’s hidden agenda is continued ‘white nationalism’:

It was like pulling teeth, but Tea Party star Rand Paul finally blurted out his core, racist ideology in front of national TV cameras. Property rights trump Black rights, every time. “White supremacy is the connective link that holds the ‘Tea Party’ together – that, and relentless media coverage

White people in the aggregate will try to preserve the essential elements of a White Man’s Country in perpetuity unless the state intervenes.

Rand Paul, the Tea Party champion and winner of the Republican senatorial nomination from Kentucky, thinks business owners have the inalienable right to refuse service to Black people. It only took a few minutes for MSNBC’s liberal-minded Rachel Maddow to pry the truth out of Paul – to make him elocute his racist beliefs before a national audience.
Ford explains how Rand Paul is “ now the “Mad Hatter” – for blurting out on Maddow’s show beliefs he and his Texas congressman father, Ron Paul, have always held, and which have served both men well in the white nationalist movement called the Tea Party.

Black Agenda Radio Commentary MP3 File

Many wondered why MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow had chosen the issue of The Civil Rights Act of 1964 to form the basis of her recent ideological debate (concerning the proper relationship between government and private business and, federal government’s extent of control over state’s rights) with Rand Paul .

Was she trying to ‘out’ Dr Paul, the Republican nominee, who recently won the Kentucky primary, as a ‘closet’ racist?

Was she, perhaps, afraid that Dr Paul would revoke the Civil Rights Act of 1964 if he ever got into power in spite of the fact that as of this date, Congress has no plans of ‘revisiting’ this piece of historic legislation.

In an effort to ‘set the record straight on this issue, the Kentucky primary winner issued the followingstatement to the press.

Here is an excerpt:

“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.

Some viewers got the impression that Maddow was trying to persuade Paul as to the magnitude of the injustice of racial discrimination so that she can change his opinion on the issue.

Those who are familiar with the tenets of Libertarianism understand what Paul is saying. To paraphrase Paul: In his opinion, discrimination is unjust…grossly unjust however…the legislative effort employed to remedy discrimination (especially one particular title-out of 10-from the civil rights act of 1964) does not pass scrutiny when it comes constitutional adherence.

Paul clarified his one objection to the Civil Rights Law of 1964 during a recently-held
Democracy Now interview. Paul explained his position as follows :

“There’s ten different titles, you know, to the Civil Rights Act, and nine out of ten deal with public institutions and I’m absolutely in favor of. One deals with private institutions. And had I been around, I would have tried to modify that. When you support nine out of ten things in a good piece of legislation, do you vote for it or against it? And I think sometimes those are difficult situations. I do defend and believe that government should not be involved with institutional racism or discrimination or segregation in schools, busing, all of those things. But had I been there, there would have been some discussion over one of the titles of the civil rights. If we want to harbor in on private businesses and their policies, then you have to have the discussion about, do you want to abridge the First Amendment, as well? “

American political journalist Alexander Cockburn is rather annoyed with regards to how the interview was conducted-by both of the participants. In a recent article in the muckraking newsletter Counterpunch ( a biweekly publication widely respected for its critical coverage of both Democratic and Republican political leaders, foreign policy etc…) Cockburn wrote:

If Rand Paul hadn’t been so preoccupied with winding up for what he plainly thought was his knock-out punch, concerning Maddow’s posture on the right to bear arms in every restaurant in America from Joe’s Diner to Le Cirque, he could have turned the tables easily enough, just by saying that this ritual flourishing of the 1964 Civil Rights Act doesn’t have too much to do with what has happened to blacks since that glorious day, from an appalling school system, to blighted housing, constricted employment possibilities, shriveled share of the national income and most recently the greatest transfer in US history of money and assets from African Americans to rich white people by the mortgage speculators, given free rein by Democrats and Republicans

After watching Maddow’s interview , Cockburn continues, CounterPunch’s co-editor Jeffrey St. Clair noted:

“Maddow and Paul agree on probably 90 per cent of the BIG issues confronting us, from ending the drug and Afghan war, to ending bail outs. But because of their own peculiar prejudices, his doctrinaire libertarian, hers PC progressive, neither of them can talk about anything other than a non-issue such as the Civil Rights Act of 19 — SIXTY-FOUR. It’s like a Dadaist play.”

Robert Scheer , a liberal, independent journalist wrote the following in an article he penned for Truthdig (a progressive web magazine containing articles written by people who are considered experts in their respective areas of interest) titled:
”Who’s Afraid of Rand Paul?”.

Count me as one lefty liberal who is not the least bit unhappy with the victory by Rand Paul in Kentucky’s Republican primary for the U.S. Senate. Not because it might make it easier for some Democratic Party hack to win in the general, but rather because he seems to be a principled libertarian in the mold of his father, Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, and we need more of that impulse in the Congress. What’s wrong with cutting back big government that mostly exists to serve the interests of big corporations? Surely it would be better if that challenge came from populist progressives of the left, in the Bernie Sanders mold, but this is Kentucky we’re talking about.

The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) is not very happy with Rand Paul.

Recently, the President and Chief Executive Officer of the NAACP- Benjamin Jealous challenged Mr Paul to a debate on the topic of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. He wrote:

Mr. Paul says that he supports all efforts to fight government-sponsored discrimination. He has no quibble with the end of segregation in public schools, for example, or in public-sector hiring. His only dispute is with desegregation of the private sector — the local merchants and lunch-counter operators whose speech rights were apparently encroached on by an overzealous federal government. In Mr. Paul’s worldview, the free hand of the marketplace would have eventually forced most of those businesses to serve black folk anyway, because it was in their economic interest to do so.
The problem is that it never quite worked that way. Even after Jim Crow laws were overturned, those business establishments that bucked the system and served an integrated clientele faced threats, coercion and violence from a ruling class — a group made up not merely of local thugs, but of fellow business owners and, far too often, the local police force itself.

This was the point of federal intervention in the first place. The states and municipalities on the front lines of the desegregation movements were themselves the most likely to be institutionally corrupted by the cancer of racism. A relatively more objective outside party — the federal government — would have to serve as a mediating force.
Of course the story went far beyond potential corruption.

Read the rest of this interesting editorial.

What it all boils down to is the fact that, IMO, libertarianism represents a ‘pure’ political ideology that politicians belonging to a variety of political parties- like to ‘borrow ‘ ideas from.

It is imperative that the citizens understand the different aspects of Libertarian thought so that ‘the baby is not thrown out with the bathwater’ when it comes to dismissing too quickly something which may contain great value-provided that it is explained properly to the public.

Will Rand Paul’s recent nomination affect American political discourse?

Only time will tell.

As John F. Kennedy was fond of saying:

Let us not seek the Republican answer or the Democratic answer but the right answer

Perhaps Rand Paul’s ideas may lead the nation closer to finding the ‘right’ answer.

Stay tuned.

************************ Take Action *************************

If you do not support Rand Paul:
1-Visit and sign the petition

If you support Rand Paul:
1- Visit his website and consider making a financial contribution.

************************ Updates Below *************************

UPDATE I
June 7, 2010

Rand Paul’s campaign has ‘opened a window’ into libertarianism and the author of the article discussed below is shining a light through that window…

Libertarians are too focused on individual liberty only as it relates to how much authority government exerts over individuals . What about corporations and the power they exert over individual rights?

The author of this intelligently written commentary
discusses some of the ‘serious intellectual deficiencies’ which are, in his opinion, inherent in doctrinaire libertarian philosophy .

How does individual liberty get affected by corporate wealth and power?

Are libertarians cutting off their noses to spite their faces?

Is Libertarian philosophy ignoring the value (if any) of government serving as a ‘checks and balances’ against too much corporate power over society?

The author, Ernest A. Canning, explains why:

“Libertarians fail to appreciate that, especially in the 21st Century, the removal of government as a check against unfettered corporate wealth and power leads to the tyranny of a corporate controlled economy”.

“The ‘Public/private distinction for civil rights enforcement ignores the omnipotent power of private corporations; anti-government ‘Tea Party’ rhetoric misses the real threat to liberty posed by unchecked corporate wealth and power…”

“Lawyers understand that rights cannot be treated as absolutes; that the rights of one individual often conflict with those of another; that both our legislatures and courts are designed to engage in a balancing of those rights, which, if not fettered by the corruption of special interests, should strive to protect individual rights to the extent possible while enhancing the general welfare. An individual may have a right to inhale carcinogens in cigarette smoke but that does not mean that he or she has the right to expose others to those carcinogens by smoking in a crowded restaurant”

Read the rest of this informative article

Notes:

Ernest A. Canning has been an active member of the California state bar since 1977. Mr. Canning has received both undergraduate and graduate degrees in political science as well as a juris doctor. He is also a Vietnam vet (4th Infantry, Central Highlands 1968).

Mr. Canning’s essay appeared in a recent edition of The Brad Blog. The blog’s publisher –Brad Friedman- is an independent investigative journalist, blogger, broadcaster and a highly respected expert on the issue of election integrity.

Back to Top
.

COPYRIGHT @ 2009, 2010, Permission given to reproduce in any public media however must cite and link to SCVJournal.com