How About Drug and Background Checks for Legislators?

Hot topic among the GOP Tea Bagger set right now is Drug Testing for Welfare recipients.

I think we should conduct Drug Testing and Criminal Background checks on anyone elected to office – with the result that if they fail, or have a criminal background they not be allowed to serve. Why exactly do we have a system in which felons can’t vote…But they can serve office and be party to sensitive national secrets? One of the first things they do when you get a Security Clearance at any level in this country is a Criminal Background Check. You got a Felony…You don’t get a clearance…Period.

The Republican/Tea Party member in the following… Failed.

Portsmouth Rep. Daniel P. Gordon has lengthy criminal record

Tea Party Member Daniel P. Gordon

On Monday, the freshman legislator appeared in District Court, Providence, and was ordered held without bail for failing to appear in court in Massachusetts in 2008 on charges of eluding the police and three other motor vehicle violations. He spent the weekend at the Adult Correctional Institutions after the Rhode Island State Police learned that there was a warrant for his arrest stemming from the stop by the Massachusetts State Police on Route 195 in Fall River.

By the end of the day, he had been transferred to Massachusetts authorities, who released him on $1,000 bail, according to the Associated Press.

Court records from Fall River and Taunton, Mass., show that Gordon, 42, a Republican representing Portsmouth, Tiverton and Little Compton, has a serious arrest record. He has spent more than five months locked up in the Bristol County House of Correction in North Dartmouth, Mass., on charges of attempted murder, assault and battery with a dangerous weapon and for a assaulting and threatening to kill his girlfriend.

Anti-Discrimination Laws in NY In the 40′s

Interesting article on the history of anti-discrimination laws in NY, which preceded much of the rest of the country by 20 years. So much for Mr. Paul’s “pricerples” -

Before the US Civil Rights Laws: Anti-Discrimination Action in New York State

Rand Paul’s criticism of the federal civil rights legislation of the 1960s can be better evaluated by looking at the workings of similar legislation that appeared on the state level two decades before.

In 1945, New York became the first state since Reconstruction to pass anti-discrimination legislation. At the time, there was plenty of biased behavior in the state based on race, religion, and nationality. Naturally, members of New York’s diverse ethnic population—plus many liberals of all backgrounds—found these discriminatory practices deeply offensive. As a result, the new legislation banned discrimination in employment on the basis of race, creed, color, or national origin and established a New York State Commission Against Discrimination to enforce this ban. In subsequent years, the law was expanded to cover discrimination in public accommodations, with gender discrimination added to the list of violations.

This law has a personal dimension for me. In 1946, my father, Jacob (“Jack”) Wittner, went to work as a field representative for the New York State Commission Against Discrimination. For nearly two decades, he took complaints of discrimination from aggrieved individuals, investigated these complaints, and wrote up determinations for the commissioners, who issued such determinations more or less as he wrote them. In the mid-1960s, he became director of investigations for the New York City Commission on Human Rights, and in later years worked for the federal government at enforcing its equal employment opportunity guidelines.

Michael Steele Buckdances Around Rand Paul Issue

The HNIC is having a bit of a rough time here, trying to come up with a defense (ANY defense) of Rand Paul’s position of Civil Rights…

He flatly refuses to condemn Paul’s viewpoint.

Now, this isn’t totally unexpected, as the RNC HNIC, Mikkie has to support his “team” no matter how repulsive and repellent they may be. What is sad is that he admits a number of other Republicans hold similar views…

Rand Paul expresses a Libertarian viewpoint which is why the vast majority of Minorities associate libertarianism with racism. Indeed, many white supremacists around the country have adopted libertarianism as a political viewpoint because it justifies their racism.

More Issues For Tea Bagger Ky Senate Candidate Rand Paul

Seems that this isn’t the first time 1) Paul’s views have caused a bit of consternation, 2) people in the Paul’s campaign has had some “racial issues”, but 3)…

Rand Paul's New "Hoodie" - Same as the Old "Hoodie"...

It’s the first time there has been a calculated backpedal – which is one of those things Politicians tend to do when they get their cajones in a wringer… LIE.

Number 1 -

Rand Paul Made Same Racial Comments in 2002

Rand Paul’s appearance last evening on Rachel Maddow wasn’t the first time he made comments about racial discrimination.

In a May 30, 2002 letter to the editor of the Bowling Green Daily News about the Federal Fair Housing Act, Rand Paul made his beliefs about legalized discrimination quite clear.

Here are some excerpts from his letter headlined “Distinction blurred between private, public property”:

A recent Daily News editorial supported the Federal Fair Housing Act. At first glance, who could object to preventing discrimination in housing? Most citizens would agree that it is wrong to deny taxpayer-financed, “public” housing to anyone based on the color of their skin or the number of children in the household.

But the Daily News ignores, as does the Fair Housing Act, the distinction between private and public property. Should it be prohibited for public, taxpayer-financed institutions such as schools to reject someone based on an individual’s beliefs or attributes? Most certainly. Should it be prohibited for private entities such as a church, bed and breakfast or retirement neighborhood that doesn’t want noisy children? Absolutely not.

Decisions concerning private property and associations should in a free society be unhindered. As a consequence, some associations will discriminate.

-SNIP-

A free society will abide unofficial, private discrimination – even when that means allowing hate-filled groups to exclude people based on the color of their skin.

Number 2 – As to that “racial thing” – it seems Rand Paul’s Spokesman had to step down in January over some comments made on his MySpace -

FLASHBACK: Paul Campaign Spokesman Resigned Over Racism On Myspace Page

Controversy is swirling over Rand Paul’s doctrinaire libertarian take on the civil rights legislation of the 1960s. But this is not the first time the Kentucky Republican’s campaign has hit a bump in racially sensitive territory.

In December, Chris Hightower, the spokesman for Paul’s senate campaign, was forced to resignafter a liberal Kentucky blog discovered that his MySpace page had a comment posted around Martin Luther King Day that read: “HAPPY N***ER DAY!!!” above what appears to be a historical photo of the lynching of a black man…

Hightower, who was also the frontman of a local Megadeth-style metal band called Commander, wrote a MySpace post referring to “Afro-Americans” titled “Blacks don’t like my Napalm Death hoodie”:

So, I was in Rivergate Mall today in line to get some pizza and I noticed a group of Afro-Americans were looking at me with hate and whispering stuff. I was wondering WTF and procceeded to sit facing them and give them the “what the fuck are you looking at look”. Anyway after a few snarls they quit looking at me. I was like do these fuckers think I am someone else or what? Anyway I finished my food and went to find some new shoes. About 10 minutes later, another group of Afro-Americans are giving me the same looks, it then dawns on me, there has to be something on this hoodie that is pissing off the Afro-Americans. And sure enough when I get outside the mall I look and bingo. KKK …. LOL!”

And now Number 3 – The lie calculated to calm the storm -

REVERSAL: Paul Now Backs Ban On Discrimination By Businesses

The Rand Paul camp has issued a new statement (via Greg Sargent) saying that Paul does in fact support the power of the federal government “to insure that private businesses don’t discriminate based on race.”

That appears to be a full reversal from Paul’scomment on Rachel Maddow Wednesday night that, referring to the section of the 1964 Civil Rights Act that bars private institutions from race-based discrimination, “had I been around, I would have tried to modify that.”

Said Paul spokesman Jesse Benton (who, by the way, was also a spokesman for Ron Paul’s 2008 presidential campaign):

“Civil Rights legislation that has been affirmed by our courts gives the Federal government the right to insure that private businesses don’t discriminate based on race. Dr. Paul supports those powers.”

That goes further than the statement from Rand Paul himself earlier today that endorsed the Civil Rights Act because of its “intent” but fell short of supporting the power of the government to ban racial discrimination by private businesses.

Beware of Public Beaches!

Why conservatism fails…

more about “Beware of Public Beaches!“, posted with vodpod