Rand Paul: Racially Problematic, Just Like His Dad...

On Wednesday I listened to a brief interview on NPR radio, in which Ron Paul’s son Rand dodged, evaded and weaseled around questions involving his support of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.  I was shocked!  “He can’t get away with this, can he?  This is political suicide!”

But I’m not so naïve.  In the 2008 presidential primaries, Rand’s father Ron ran for the Republican ticket.  During that campaign, racist material was uncovered from 1990s issues of the “Ron Paul Political Report.”  Paul denies that he personally wrote any of those articles, but they were nevertheless published in a newsletter bearing his name and his endorsement.

The controversial newsletters include rants against the Israeli lobby, gays, AIDS victims and Martin Luther King Jr. -- described as a "pro-Communist philanderer." One newsletter, from June 1992, right after the LA riots, says "order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks."

Another says, "The criminals who terrorize our cities -- in riots and on every non-riot day -- are not exclusively young black males, but they largely are. As children, they are trained to hate whites, to believe that white oppression is responsible for all black ills, to 'fight the power,' to steal and loot as much money from the white enemy as possible."
In some excerpts, the reader may be led to believe the words are indeed from Paul, a resident of Lake Jackson, Texas. In the "Ron Paul Political Report" from October 1992, the writer describes carjacking as the "hip-hop thing to do among the urban youth who play unsuspecting whites like pianos."

The author then offers advice from others on how to avoid being carjacked, including "an ex-cop I know," and says, "I frankly don't know what to make of such advice, but even in my little town of Lake Jackson, Texas, I've urged everyone in my family to know how to use a gun in self defense. For the animals are coming."

Click here for the full report.

The animals are coming.  Lovely.  You know, one of the things that bothers me most about this filth is how much hipster emergent-esque Christians got on board with Paul.  In 2008, everyone I knew was either for Obama or Ron Paul.  I’m not saying Obama should have been the only choice (I also really liked Hillary, and grieved voting against her) but c’mon!  Ron Paul?  Is libertarianism so compelling that you’ll vote for a documented racist, to support it?  And I get libertarianism.  I get why it’s attractive, and even compelling.  But voting for a man like Paul seems indefensible.  You don’t get out of this sort of thing by saying, “I didn’t write it.”

It strikes me that many outraged whites were saying the same thing about Obama, regarding his affiliation with Reverend Wright.  Well, most of you know how I feel about race issues in America.  “God damn America” for the rape, torture and genocide of native peoples?  Of course.  America is not beyond our moral condemnation.  "God damn America" for the rape, enslavement, exploitation and oppression of Africans?  Really?  You don't think our history is damning?  Why in the world should we get a free pass?  Numbers 14:18 reads, “The LORD is slow to anger, abounding in love and forgiving sin and rebellion. Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished; he punishes the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation.”  Do I believe God is really a vengeful God?  Not really.  But I do believe that every deed bears fruit, good or bad.  Systemically, whites have not yet tasted the bitter fruit resulting from slavery, despite black Americans’ continued disparity and marginalization in the United States.

But now I’m getting off track.  Here’s more on our friend Rand Paul:

(CNN) - Kentucky Democratic Senate candidate Jack Conway is putting the heat on GOP rival Rand Paul over Paul's recent comments regarding the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
Paul - the Tea Party favorite who easily beat Kentucky Secretary of State Trey Grayson in the state's May 18 Senate primary - repeatedly dodged questions in recent media interviews about whether he thinks parts of the landmark legislation amount to a constitutional overreach.

An interview with the Louisville Courier-Journal last month highlighted Paul's controversial views during which he said: "I don't like the idea of telling private business owners-I abhor racism-I think it's a bad business decision to ever exclude anybody from your restaurant. But at the same time I do believe in private ownership. But I think there should be absolutely no discrimination on anything that gets any public funding and that's most of what the Civil Rights Act was about to my mind."
Following his primary victory on Tuesday, Paul was again questioned over his views regarding the legislation on National Public Radio and MSNBC's Rachel Maddow. In response to questions, Paul said he supports the 46-year old measure except for the provisions that outlaw private businesses from discriminating on the basis of race.
Jesus said, “every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit.” (Matthew 7:17)

Ron’s and Rand’s fruit tastes bad.


tmamone said...

This is why I no longer identify myself as a libertarian, because anytime the government acts they scream "Communism!" I don't want the government to get too big for its britches, either. In fact, I don't believe the government should (or can) solve everything. For example, even though I know people who have benefited from welfare, I personally thing it's just a Band-Aide on the gaping wound that is poverty (wow, how poetic!). However, I believe the government should and can do some things.

Hopefully that made sense. This is why I try not talk about politics much . . . I end up babbling like an idiot.

David Henson said...

you are on a (holy?) roll my friend.

Nice work.

TV said...

Listen to what he says. He is simply stating that the only thing he didn’t like about the Civil Rights Act is the fact that the Federal Reserve Government wanted to take advantage of a crisis in that they enacted policies that to that which were forced upon the private sector.

Meaning the government forced business to put in “elevators” and other unnecessary items in their buildings for the handicapped.

Example: We are a corporate office with 2 stories full of employees. There are approximately 200 employees and 10 are handicapped. There are 4 entrances into the corporate building office. 1 of which is perfectly accessible for handicapped. The gov’t comes in and says you need have 3 more handicapped entrances (1+3 = 4) plus an elevator if they need to go the 2nd story. FYI you also need to make all of your bathrooms handicapped accessible as well as every entrance into the office.

Your company spent $1,500 to make sure your handicapped employees could work with accessibility while in the corporate offices. Now you have to spend $35,000 after the gov’t came in and told you what you need to do ($1,500 – $35,000 = $33,500 YOU HAVE TO SPEND!)

This goes for anything else you can think of.

This is what Rand was pointing out. He believes the free market will take care of itself and the gov’t shouldn’t come in and dictate how they should run business…

TV said...

I'm sorry you are not a journalist. You don't know what you are talking about and you really are not that smart. You need to educate yourself on the information at hand before you write an article misleading people. You are only helping out the mainstream media and they are doing fine..............

Peter said...

Ooh, getting personal, TV.

That's fine.

Blogs don't purport to be "journalism" (unless they do). It's a different media. Mine certainly does not make any attempt to assert itself as news. This is opinion.

I think the idea that the free market will take care of itself is one of the most dangerous social concepts actively functioning in the world today.

Rachael said...

The two parts of the Emancipation Proclamation were issued in 1862 and 1863. The Civil Rights Act was, as we all know, in 1964. That's a helluva long time for the so-called "free market" to do its "invisible hand" mumbo-jumbo.

I already have a religion, and it's not Libertarianism. ;)

Popular Posts