This is a video of he National Convention of he Libertarian Party. The guy who starts speaking was running to be the Party Chairman.
This is a video of he National Convention of he Libertarian Party. The guy who starts speaking was running to be the Party Chairman.
The Michigan GOP is seeking to increase the party’s visibility in the Democratic stronghold of Detroit, 97.5 percent of which voted to reelect Barack Obama in 2012.
The solution? Open a new outreach center for Detroit voters, named the “African American Engagement Office.”
The GOP has tapped Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) to headline the official opening of the office on Dec. 6, which will highlight “the Michigan Republican Party’s outreach efforts and our commitment to revitalizing Michigan’s urban centers,” according to the Eventbrite listing.
Paul will already be in Detroit to speak on the city’s bankruptcy crisis at the Detroit Economic Club, where he will “unveil his new legislative proposal to remove bankrupt Detroit and other economically blighted areas from poverty and the shackles of big government,” according to the Detroit Free Press.
Both the name of the office and the outreach strategy are already attracting their share of detractors. One Republican strategist told The Huffington Post that it sounds like Michigan Republicans are opening a “‘separate, but equal’ office in Detroit.”
Now – to most black folks who know of Rand’s daddy’s romance with white supremacists, and Rand’s opposition to the 1965 Civil Rights Act…
This is a bit like appointing your local KKK Leader as the Director of Diversity.
Perhaps why in his first speech in Detroit in the shiny new Minority Outreach Center… Only white folks showed up.
Not the least reason of which would be Rand’s ties to neo-confederates…
If there’s any Republican who needs to tread carefully when it comes to race, it’s Kentucky Senator Rand Paul. Between his erstwhile opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, his ties to Confederate sympathizers, and the baggage of his father’s past, pundits and observers are primed to pounce on any missteps, like his ill-received speech at Howard University this summer.
But Paul doesn’t seem to know that he’s on shaky ground with racial issues. To wit, earlier this fall, he endorsed Greg Brannon, a Republican primary candidate for Senate in North Carolina. As Molly Redden reports for Mother Jones, Brannon is far outside the mainstream of American politics. He opposes public education, rejects the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction over national law, and has lent his support to a pro-nullification rally held by the League of the South, a self-described “Southern nationalist” organization that is an obvious vehicle for neo-Confederate and white supremacist ideas.
Like Texas Senator Ted Cruz, Brannon sees the late Senator Jesse Helms, who represented North Carolina from 1973 to 2003, as a model for legislative behavior. “He was the one I most identified with,” said Brannon during a gathering this summer, “Senator No.” Helms, it should be said, was an unrepentant segregationist who used his power to institutionalize homophobia with attacks on gays and assaults on AIDS funding. To Helms, LGBT Americans were “weak, morally sick wretches,” and AIDS education was “obscene” and “revolting.”
Brannon stands with ugly forces in American life, and is the kind of far-right candidate who ought to be attacked and marginalized by Republican leaders. Like extremist candidates in Indiana, Missouri, and Nevada, his presence in the “tent” of the GOP is certain to alienate the voters who want to shift political gears without giving the car to a maniac. But, with endorsements from Rand Paul—“I support Greg Brannon, and expect him to be North Carolina’s next Senator”—and conservative activists like Red State’s Erick Erickson, there’s a fair chance he’ll make it through the primary and into the general election. And with a high profile comes a greater chance for disaster; given his history, I would be surprised if Brannon didn’t say something on race or gender that embarrassed him and his party.
Conservatives don’t just hate accusations of racism or racial insensitivity (that’s reasonable), they almost always deny that they have any substance, regardless of circumstance. It doesn’t matter that the right-wing indulged “birtherism” and called Obama a “food stamp president” and “Kenyan anti-colonialist”—it’s simply unreasonable to stamp those as racial. Likewise, when asked about his relationships with neo-Confederates and others on the far-right of American politics, Rand Paul has dismissed the questions as nonsense. “I don’t accept all of that and I don’t really need to or spend the time talking about all of that,” he said this summer in an interview with John Harwood of NPR, “If you want to talk about issues and what I stand for, I’m happy to, but I’m not going to really go through an interview reciting or respond to every yahoo in the world who wants to throw up a canard.”
Well, here’s the thing: If Rand Paul wants to avoid these questions, then he should avoid people who sympathize with white supremacists. And the same is true of the GOP writ large; if Republicans want to avoid accusations of prejudice or insensitivity, then the first step is to end the party’s association with lawmakers, officials, and activists who can’t help but indulge their worst instincts. After all, the Republican Party isn’t racist, and it shouldn’t be too hard to filter these people from the pool.
Glad some other folks are now catching onto what has been obvious for quite some time! Rand Paul comes by his “confederateness” from his dad, Ron Paul – whose association with white supremacists and racists i long documented and established. That association is based on the Libertarian belief called “Right of Association” which insists that any individual has the right to associate, or disassociate with anyone for any reason he chooses…Including race. It is a defense of segregation and Jim Crow, and declares that the “Commerce Clause” upon which most modern Civil rights Legislation is based (or was before the 5 thugs in robes became a majority on the Supreme Court) is trumped by the unstated right in the Constitution.
Which is why Ron Paul could be seen frequently at lunch with white nationalist luminaries such as Don White and Jared Taylor at the local Tara Thai Restaurant near Tysons Corner, Va. Which is a small part of how positions first espoused by people like David Duke (the “Gentleman” KKK) and Jared Taylor (the “Color of Crime”) back in the early 90’s became mainstream in the Republican Party and accepted orthodoxy by it’s mouthpiece, Faux News.
In two earlier articles (here and here), I argued that the Republican Party’s extremism can be traced to its increased dependence on an electorate that is largely rural, Southern and white. These voters, who figure prominently in the Tea Party, often decline to interpret political conflict as a struggle among interest groups or a good-faith clash of opinion. Instead, they tend to identify the country as a whole with an idealized version of themselves, and to equate any dissent from their values with disloyalty by alien, “un-American” forces. This paranoid vision of politics, I argued, makes them seek out opportunities for dramatic conflict and to shun negotiation and compromise.
In what follows, I want to extend these thoughts a bit further by exploring one simple question: why is this strain of political paranoia so entrenched in the South? The answer, I believe, will shed light not only on the current state of our politics but on the evolution of American conservatism generally.
We should begin with a clarification. What we want to explain isn’t why rural voters might think their interests sometimes diverge from those of urban (and suburban) Americans. That is easily enough explained: they think it because it’s true. Rural and urban areas have distinctive concerns, and these sometimes result in incompatible demands on policymakers. These kinds of conflicts are the mother’s milk of politics, so none of this is particularly surprising or, indeed, interesting.
What is surprising and interesting is when this conflict is experienced not as a matter of interests but of identity. It’s one thing to see urbanites as fellow citizens whose policy preferences depart from one’s own; it’s quite another to argue that their policy preferences give rise to serious doubt about whether they’re really Americans. Yet exactly this is the message of all those conservative complaints about “socialistic” Democrats who ignore our constitutional traditions as they labor to install a “nanny state.” These aren’t true Americans, resolute, independent, self-reliant; they’re feckless, faux-European traitors. (Though one, in particular, may have closer connections with Africa than Europe. You know who I mean.) Read the rest of this entry »
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.
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. Read the rest of this entry »
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” –
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. Read the rest of this entry »
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.
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)…
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’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.
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 –
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 –
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.