Tea Party Star Rand Paul Wins GOP Nomination for KY Senate seat

by Susan Marie Kovalinsky | May 20, 2010 at 06:36 am

452 views | 30 Recommendations | 19 comments

Paul wins GOP nomination for KY Senate Seat

Son of Libertarian Ron Paul, 47 year old Rand Paul is the never-elected ophthalmologist from the land of bluegrass who is so red he scares Dick Cheney, according to the New York Daily News:

How conservative is he? The 47-year-old Paul - who trounced establishment candidate Trey Grayson in Kentucky's GOP Senate primary Tuesday - wants to abolish the federal departments of education, commerce and energy, as well as the income tax.

Like Palin, this Tea Party Patriot is opposed to all government bailouts and earmarks, and President Barack Obama's "socialist" health care law. He favors a constitutional amendment banning abortion, even in cases of rape and incest.

But in a show of libertarianism, he favors legalizing marijuana.

His remarks about Tiger Woods bringing cities and city youth to exclusive country clubs and golf courses is revealing in its ignorance.

The New York Daily news called his political remarks on Woods "peculiar".

Some of his positions frighten even staunch conservatives like Dick Cheney.

For example, the father of three wants to pull U.S. military forces out of all overseas missions. Like his daddy - former presidential candidate and libertarian Rep. Ron Paul of Texas - he views the Federal Reserve as a source of much trouble that needs to be clamped down.

A "Day of Reckoning"

"We are encountering a day of reckoning," Paul said Tuesday night, using his favorite "end is near" rhetoric. "And this Tea Party movement is a message to Washington that we are unhappy. . . "

On NPR yesterday, host Robert Siegel asked Paul in an interview , if he - the son of libertarian hero and former presidential candidate Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) - thought the Civil Rights Act went too far.

Seigel reminded Paul that in the past he has said that the Americans with Disabilities Act was an overreach of the federal government.

Paul said he saw no place for racism, and thinks disabilities could be handled locally, without the help of the federal government. For example, giving a handicapped person a first floor office rather than putting in an expensive elevator.

Later on MSNBC's "Rachel Maddow Show" , when asked about ENDA, Paul had this to say.

"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."

4 See all footage | View Slideshow

Share: email story | add to any | | facebook | stumbleupon

recommend Sign In or Join to post comments

Karen Hatter

at 07:52 on May 20th, 2010

Paul took some heat for comments he made about the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which is politically sacred ground that even his fellow Republicans won't touch. The firestorm started when Paul said that it should be ok for restaurant owners to discriminate if they choose to do so. In other words, if Woolworth's had not wanted Dr. King at their lunch counter, they should have been allowed to turn him away. But he then went on to say that any business receiving federal funding should not be allowed to engage in discrimination, that Martin Luther King is one of his heroes, and that he understands the fact that racism in America has become systematic.
But it didn't matter, the damage was done, and there was no cleaning up his comment. By arguing that he understands the problematic nature of systematic racism, yet simultaneously claiming that it is wrong for the federal government to create laws to deal with it, he was contradicting himself. Paul seems to have no problem legislating personal choice on issues that align with the values of his party, such as abortion, but thinks that we should be able to discriminate based on race, gender or sexual orientation if the spirit moves us. Perhaps in the mind of Rand Paul, freedom and liberty are always relative. But then again, the confusion of party affiliations, mixed with political correctness cause most of us to be walking contradictions, including the highly conservative black community that is forced by Democrats to take on liberal values that we don't always believe in.
Again, I don't dislike Rand Paul as much as some people might have hoped I would. But I do not find him to be necessarily productive for our nation as we try to move forward and heal from racial pain of the past. He and his father, Ron Paul, have grown in popularity as a by-product of racially-divisive sentiment that has overwhelmed our nation in light of the Obama presidency. Racism is America's cancer, and the political success of the Paul family is a barometer of just how sick we still are.

Susan Marie Kovalinsky

at 07:54 on May 20th, 2010

Thanks for that important post, Karen!

Karen Hatter

at 07:57 on May 20th, 2010

You're welcome, Susan!

JustMyOpinion

at 09:43 on May 20th, 2010

The far- left continues to say Paul said something he didnt. Paul was very clear in saying he does not support racial discrimination with regards to the 64 act, yet the far-left socialist driven political figures, continue to weave together Paul saying he does not support bigger government being in the private sect. such as businesses, and Paul some how being a racist because of that stance. The far-left want you to believe that if you want a larger paycheck by paying less taxes by having less government, you are then somehow a racist. LMFAO You cant make this stuff up.

JustMyOpinion

at 10:11 on May 20th, 2010

The only slaves I see today are the ones relying on the government for their every whelm instead of being free and relying on themselves. But that freedom of relying on oneself totally goes against the platform of the far-left who makes millions if not billions on keeping people in bondage. This is slavery in the 21st century.

Karen Hatter

at 10:53 on May 20th, 2010

Maddow:... How about desegregating lunch counters?

Paul: Well what it gets into then is if you decide that restaurants are publicly owned and not privately owned, then do you say that you should have the right to bring your gun into a restaurant even though the owner of the restaurant says 'well no, we don't want to have guns in here' the bar says 'we don't want to have guns in here because people might drink and start fighting and shoot each-other.' Does the owner of the restaurant own his restaurant? Or does the government own his restaurant? These are important philosophical debates but not a very practical discussion...

Maddow: Well, it was pretty practical to the people who had the life nearly beaten out of them trying to desegregate Walgreen's lunch counters despite these esoteric debates about what it means about ownership. This is not a hypothetical, Dr. Paul.

Source: huffingtonpost.com

JustMyOpinion

at 11:25 on May 20th, 2010

Karen, if I do not want someone on my property, do I or do I not have a right to kick them off my property? Its just that simple. If I come on to your property and you dont want me there, dont you have a right to kick me off said property?

Thats all Paul is saying. But then again, if the far-left doesnt try to show some kind of racism, then their arguments are nothing and baseless. The race card is over. Get use to it. Learn to stand on your own two feet and stop relying on a 40 year old crutch that every one who does not support bigger government is therefor a racist. Last time I looked we had a black man is in the Whitehouse, so the "whiteman is holding me down" argument is null and void.

stejeb

at 13:05 on May 20th, 2010

Sad to say JustMyOpinion, the race card is still not over, that is obvious in so many of the actions being attempted by the right wing to oust Obama, and the continuing efforts by them to prevent anyone other than the people they smile upon to vote or have a say in the country's future, equality brings harmony, I don't see too much harmony in the USA at the moment.

Karen Hatter

at 12:16 on May 20th, 2010

JustMyOpinion, the comments made by Rand Paul re: the 1964 Civil Rights Act attempt to have it both ways; giving lip service to opposition to racial discrimination while proclaiming the act went too far in declaring it against the law to tell private owners to end discriminatory practices based upon race.

Ever since 1964, the Right Wing in the United States has attempted to slowly, methodically whittle away at much of the legislation of which it disapproved, vehemently fighting tooth and nail to keep the United States steeped in segregation and millions of African Americans in the condition of being less than second class citizens.

Supporting the right of bigots to practice race based discrimination is racist.

JustMyOpinion

at 13:06 on May 20th, 2010

Yet again you refuse to answer the 2 questions asked, do you or do you not have the right to kick me off your property? The far left agenda is to simply sell the idea that enslavement is freedom. You an African American should be ashamed in playing a role in the enslavement of millions of Americans. For those not wanting to be a slave, keep in mind that smaller government equals more freedom and not the other way around as the far left attempts to sell.

Karen Hatter

at 05:39 on May 22nd, 2010

I must say that is one of the goofiest things I've ever read, JustMyOpinion.

If the federal government had not stepped in to correct the 'birth defect' of slavery by constitutional amendment, codified in the rules of the United States' founding document, the Constitution, barring a successful national slave uprising by those of African descent, African Americans may very well STILL be enslaved, being denied status as citizens.

The Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act and other legislation was necessary because, the alleged freedoms bestowed upon the formerly enslaved, BY constitutional amendment, were resisted, mainly by the southern U.S. states.

The period after the Civil War (1865-1877) is known as Reconstruction.

During this period the nation struggled to put itself back together and decide what rights should be given to former slaves.

At first it appeared President Andrew Johnson would control Reconstruction. Under Johnson’s plan Southern states quickly reorganized their governments and elected new members to Congress. These reorganized Southern governments passed Black Codes.”

These were laws meant to control the freed slaves. While the Black Codes did not reimpose slavery, they did not allow the former slaves true freedom. In December, 1865, when Congress reconvened the Senators and Representatives from these new Southern governments showed up to take their seats in Congress. Many of these Southern representatives had been leaders of the Confederacy. It seemed to many Northerners that the South had not learned its lesson in the war. Congress rejected Johnson’s Reconstruction plan and refused to seat the Southern representatives. After this Congress took control of the Reconstruction process.

After Congress took over the process of Reconstruction in December, 1865, a series of Reconstruction laws were passed. These laws included the 14 th and 15th Amendments to the Constitution. The 13th Amendment passed before the end of the war had freed all slaves. The 14th Amendment (1868) made blacks citizens of their states. It said a state could not deny its citizens the “equal protection of the law.” It also said states could not take away a person’s life, liberty, or property without “due process of law.” The 14th Amendment was meant to make the Black Codes unconstitutional. The 14th Amendment also disqualified most former Confederate leaders from holding state or federal office. The 15th Amendment (1870) said the right to vote could not be denied based on “race, color, or previous condition of servitude.”

After 1868 Radical Republicans dominated the Reconstruction process. The Radical Republicans wanted to be harsher on the South and were more interested in insuring equal rights for former slaves. The period after 1868 is often referred to as Radical Reconstruction. Laws passed during Radical Reconstruction provided for the military occupation of the South. These laws required Southern states to draw up new constitutions. These laws prevented many former Confederates from voting and holding office, and they guaranteed former slaves the right to vote.

The Reconstruction governments set up under these new constitutions were controlled by Carpetbaggers, Scalawags, and blacks. Carpetbaggers were Northerners who went South to help run Southern governments. Scalawags were white Southerners who cooperated with the Reconstruction governments. Most white Southerners considered Scalawags traitors to their race.

Under these governments blacks voted in large numbers, and many held office.

President Johnson opposed Radical Reconstruction . In 1868 there was an attempt by Congress to impeach and remove Johnson. While Johnson was impeached by the House of Representatives, the Senate fell one vote short of the two-thirds majority needed to remove him.

The impeachment of Johnson failed. But it left Johnson and the presidency weakened. Most white Southerners deeply resented the Radical Reconstruction governments. They fought back by forming secret, violent organizations like the Ku Klux Klan to intimidate blacks, Carpetbaggers, and Scalawags. While the U.S. Army worked hard to suppress the Klan and similar groups, they remained a threat.

Some of these Reconstruction governments lasted only a year or two, while some lasted ten years.

In the end, as U.S. troops were pulled out of the South, white Southerner Democrats regained control of their state governments. The last U.S. troops occupying the South were pulled out in 1877, and the last three Reconstruction state governments collapsed soon after.

In the years after Reconstruction ended in 1877, Southern state governments found ways around the 14th and 15th Amendments. Blacks in the South were segregated, denied the right to vote, and treated like second-class citizens. Thus, Reconstruction’s promise of equality for the freed slaves was not fulfilled.

The resultant discrimination and terror inflicted upon Black/African American people after the period of Reconstruction, with the complicity of elements within both the Democratic and Republican Parties, lasted nearly 100 years until the period known as the Civil Rights Era in the 1960s.

There is no one attempting to enslave the Right Wing, JustMyOpinion.

However, the more the Right Wing's intent to re-visit societal progress made in America is revealed, the more it is the duty of ALL Americans of good conscience to fight those seeking a return to what many in the Right Wing believe was 'the good ole days' .

YankeeJim

at 05:29 on May 21st, 2010

If the "property" is open to the public such as a restaurant, then the "public" have equal rights to entering and using the property as advertised. The "owner" of the property may enforce rules governing behavior, but there can be no discrimination based on race, sex, or creed as guaranteed by the Constitution.

Sometimes, the government steps into the private property that is for public use to say such things as "no smoking."

One day, the government led by smart people might decide to say, "no guns in the bar."

Paul's philosophical argument as called out by Maddow foolishly undermines the value that comes from more practical libertarian ideas about minimizing regulatory control and making it more efficient.

Racial discrimination continues in America in many places, some much more than others, especially Kentucky. So, Mr. Paul probably shot himself in the foot as libertarians and Tea Party folks are want to do.

Karen Hatter

at 09:52 on May 21st, 2010

Very well stated, Jim.

JustMyOpinion

at 13:40 on May 20th, 2010

See unlike you Karen, although I might disagree with what you say, I will fight to the death for you to be able to say it. Freedom

JustMyOpinion

at 14:06 on May 20th, 2010

And once again Karen you did not answer the extremly simple question asked. Can you or can you not kick me off your property?

JustMyOpinion

at 14:13 on May 20th, 2010

So Karen continues to walk around the true nature of what Paul was saying by attempting to make this a racial matter when Paul clearly said he was not in any way against the parts of the 64 act with regards to racism. With her continuance to not answer the question I asked goes to show that she is in full understanding of what Paul was referring to when he said he was not for the government intrusion of private company's. Nice try though Karen.

Amy Judd

at 14:27 on May 20th, 2010

Please stop with your baiting behavior or this comment thread will be closed. Here is a link to our code of conduct that you agreed to when you signed up to the site if you need a refresher.

utilaeastwind

at 09:42 on May 21st, 2010

Amy,

I find it quite disturbing how you wield the Code of Conduct sword.

You threaten to close a thread because you deem a member to be baiting when he is simply asking for a response to a question relevant to the article posted. However, on the other hand you allow the most foul, racist and abusive language to be used on threads to your own articles.

Please explain why you did not close the thread to the following article. The profanity is throughout the thread. The only reason I can see is that you have amassed over 66,000 views to your personal credit.

These are clips from the thread of your own article Arizona Immigration Bill SB1070: What does it mean? I am removing the extreme cursing and replacing them with XXXXX so I am not in violation of the code of conduct.

Threads from Nowpublic.com article...

Arizona Immigration Bill SB1070: What does it mean?

by Amy Judd

Sherry Suarez (not verified)

at 09:23 on May 4th, 2010 new

UNKNOWN 7829.............. YOU ARE RIGHT! USA IS NOT THE BEAST COUNTRY IS THE BEST COUNTRY!, no one said that there is nothing corrupted here, PEPE is from PERU we all read that, but he is been told to go back to Mexico, since he was saying that he has some brothers there.......... and since according to you USA is the worst then get out, why are you here......... also no one has said either to forget your race, we are just saying that there are LAWS, that all of us at one point have broken them but we learned from it not to do it again... and when you become a citizen you should just appreciate more the fact that you are here since whereever we come from is WORST than here, we have more reason to deal with whatever goes on here.... you typical XXXX, because of people like you, we all(spanish/latino/hispanic) get judged.

jhdgjdgdg (not verified)

at 12:58 on May 4th, 2010 new

hey if you XXXX don't like the usa then go back where you came from and sleep in XXXX and piss like they do in mexico you dooshbags. the usa is the best country, if its not why do all the mexicans break in here and work for 84 cents an hour. cause they would rather do that than live in the bullshit mexico which obviously eats XXXX

In my opinion, your highly subjective methods in enforcing the code of conduct, are doing a great disservice to Nowpublic.com