WHY RAND PAUL IS (WAS) RIGHT

Rand Paul, the Repulican candidate for Senate in Kentucky, took and continues to take a lot of heat for saying, shortly after he won the nomination, that he didn’t agree with the idea that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prevented a restaurant owner from refusing to serve blacks.

Of course, liberals jumped all over him and called him a racist because that’s what liberals do.

They refuse to consider the possibility that someone like Rand–a pretty smart guy–could see the danger in giving the government the right to tell you what you can or can’t do on or with your private property, or with whom you can and can not associate.

In Mississippi, after 30 years, a middle school is finally allowing blacks to run for class president.

A court order created the policy for the entire school district. That’s the government using its power to discriminate. That’s what the Civil Rights Act was intended to end–government discrimination.

But the people who refused to serve blacks in their restaurants were living under a government that sanctioned discrimination.

Paul’s point is that the government should not have the power to tell us who we can and can’t associate with because that power can be used for evil purposes, too.

The Jim Crow laws were proof of that.

Date: August 28, 2010

Categories: Politics

Tags: black kids excluded, black kids not candidates

Comments RSS TrackBack 62 comments

Reply

Chad Farthouse

in August 29th, 2010 @ 09:49

Did you read what his father said about the Islamic Cultural Center? He is absolutely right about this issue:

http://www.ronpaul.com/2010-08-20/ron-paul-sunshine-patriots-stop-your-demagogy-about-the-nyc-mosque/

Reply

JohnSteigerwald

in August 29th, 2010 @ 10:21

I like Ron Paul but I disagree with him on this–except for his point about the republicans missing an opportunity to point out the dems hypocrisy on the private property issue.

Reply

Mike

in August 30th, 2010 @ 20:43

Conservatives are being just as hypocritical about the mosque near ground zero as democrats are.

Reply

Mike

in August 29th, 2010 @ 09:58

You say it like the people who put up the “no blacks allowed” signs weren’t complicit in the matter. The people of the south supported the government discriminating against minorities and they elected people who would represent those interests. That’s why the Federal government had to step in. With most southern politicians trying to block it so they state governments could continue to discriminate.

Reply

JohnSteigerwald

in August 29th, 2010 @ 10:24

Yep. Government power. There was too much of it. The constitution says we have the right of free association. That’s why Augusta National is still an all male institution. If the government has the power to force us to associate with who the government says we should associate with, it will also have the power to say that we are not allowed to associate with people without its permission. I should be able to open a restaurant that serves only people who have green eyes and the government should have nothing to say about it.

Reply

Mike

in August 29th, 2010 @ 11:08

If that’s the case then the Supreme Court should of invalidated all those Jim Crow laws. If they had done their job then that portion of the Civil Rights Act would of been unneeded.
Reply

Satire 24/7

in August 29th, 2010 @ 13:25

There is a much much bigger picture going on here John and some of us see it and some of us don’t. Good comment though.

Reply

Lefty

in August 29th, 2010 @ 14:23

Here’s the fundamental flaw with no government regulation: It exists under the assumption that people will do what’s right. They won’t. They’ll do what gets them the most money, people be damned.
Won’t you agree, John, that it’s the government’s job to protect its citizens? Well that should include protecting the have nots from the haves.
And before you assume that that means wealth distribution, or even the problems with welfare, it simply can mean making sure those with power play within the rules.

Reply

JohnSteigerwald

in August 29th, 2010 @ 14:33

To me, the constitution is “the rules”. Follow the constitution the way it was intended and I have no problem.
Reply

Federalist10

in August 30th, 2010 @ 07:57

The government’s job is not to protect the “have nots” from the “haves.” It should protect us from foreign governments trying to invade, and from the criminals that want to burglarize my house and take the things I bought with my hard earned money. The government should provide for the “common defense” as set forth in the constitution. This class warfare crap is getting old. It makes me sick when either side tries to play it.

Reply

Lefty

in August 30th, 2010 @ 21:54

Wow, you really can’t see the forest for the trees. You think that just because someone isn’t holding a gun to your head or busting in your windows that they’re not robbing you.
Someone has to play the ref. In society. In business.
Lefties like me (progressive) and righties like you (crazy… sorry couldn’t resist) have more in common than you think. We both agree that the government messes things up more than they fix it. The difference is we would rather see them continue to help while trying to fix the government, while you think they should do nothing at all.

Reply

JohnSteigerwald

in August 31st, 2010 @ 06:59

You think it’s capable of “helping” . I don’t. I agree with Reagan who said the worst thing a person could hear is, “Hi, I’m from the federal govt. and I’m here to help.” They make things worse,

Reply

Tim

in August 31st, 2010 @ 07:20

For example it was MUCH easier to travel cross country by car before the Federal Gov’t stepped in and built all those interstate highways starting in the 50′s.

Reply

JohnSteigerwald

in August 31st, 2010 @ 07:45

Building roads is a legitimate government function. Forcing me to be part of a retirement program or telling me which doctor I can go to is not. The interstate highway program was sold in great part as a national defense issue for evacuation purposes in case of a nuclear attack. National defense is obviously also a legitimate function of the federal govt, Nice try, though.

Reply

Tim

in August 31st, 2010 @ 08:14

Then I’ll just point to the Tennessee Valley Authority which efficiently provides power for over 9 million people. Go ask Barry Goldwater for the reaction you get when you suggest to privatize it.

In that case the Federal gov’t solved flooding issues AND provided electric power.

Reply

JohnSteigerwald

in August 31st, 2010 @ 08:26

I’ll take your word for it but I suspect that I could find another side to that story, too.

Reply

Tim

in August 31st, 2010 @ 08:53

did you know that oak ridge tennessee was chosen to be the location for uraniam enrichment for the manhattan project because of the cheap hydroelectric power being provided by the TVA?

JohnSteigerwald

in August 31st, 2010 @ 09:46

Read “The forgotten Man” by Amity Shales. She lays out all the ways that FDR prolonged the depression. The TVA is not given good reviews in the book.
Tim

in August 31st, 2010 @ 11:34

I can imagine that she didn’t like it because it competed with Wendell Wilkie’s electric holding company. Wilkie’s argument was that the government could borrow at cheaper rates and wasn’t concerned about a profit that it could operate more efficiently than a private business.

Wilkie argued that because the government could do something better than private industry that it should stay out. I’d argue if the government can do something better it should step in.
JohnSteigerwald

in August 31st, 2010 @ 13:17

I would argue that the government should do only what the constitution says it can do. Wilkie’s company was ready to :light the south”. He was waiting to see what FDR was going to do and sitting on a pile of cash. Roosevelt used the power of the govt. to institute an “undistributed profits” tax to force the money out of him. That’s just one example she gives of how FDR PREVENTED recovery from the depression and prolonged it.
Tim

in August 31st, 2010 @ 13:54

The building of dams and management of waterways that cross state lines is a legitimate function of the Federal Gov’t. See the Hoover Dam. That was authorized in 1928 when Calvin Coolidge was President.
JohnSteigerwald

in August 31st, 2010 @ 15:58

Fine. That doesn’t mean that they manage it well.

Reply

Federalist10

in August 31st, 2010 @ 07:40

Why does the government need to play the ref at all in society or business? This society was founded on the concept that if you work hard and innovate, you’ll succeed. There’s some luck involved. Individual merit, however, is how to get ahead. Not the collective good. If someone gets screwed, why does government need to be involved? Isn’t that why we have a civil court system? As much as I can’t stand how the legal system has been perverted, better people solve their own differences than the government decide when somebody’s made enough money. The constitution was designed for a limited government because the framers believed that people could get ahead if the government got out of the way. I believe that as well.

And I’m missing your “not seeing the forest for the trees” analogy. I fail to see what big picture we are missing by focusing in on the individual.

As far as government playing the ref, can’t we definitively state now that Keynesian economics is a failure? Businesses are sitting on tons of cash because they’re scared of what the government’s going to do next – the uncertainty of central planning working against market functions is perpetuating this economic downturn.

Reply

Lefty

in August 31st, 2010 @ 16:50

Banks are sitting on tons of money not because they’re afraid of what the government is going to do, but because they used the bailouts not to loan out to business and people, but to pay off their horrid balance sheets, and are once agan back to their horrific practices that are going to collapse the economy again.
The only problem with the original bailouts, one Bush, one Obama, is that they didn’t have stipulations to have the money repaid as was the case with the auto industry.
But when the rules are set up to benefit the haves, and by haves I mean top 1%, then the rules are not fair, and all the hard work and innovation you cite can’t change the game.

Reply

JohnSteigerwald

in August 31st, 2010 @ 20:01

The only problem with the bailouts was the bailouts. I’m shocked that it didn’t work out the way they said it would.

Reply

Mike

in August 31st, 2010 @ 20:57

It’s funny how the top Republicans were for the bailouts when Bush was President and against them when Obama was President.

Reply

Mario4Prez

in August 29th, 2010 @ 15:32

The Constitution was written by 18th century slave-owners. Times change, and the laws need change with them.

Reply

JohnSteigerwald

in August 29th, 2010 @ 15:36

That’s right. The Founders allowed for that. They’re called AMENDMENTS.

Reply

Lefty

in August 30th, 2010 @ 21:55

So let’s amend the 2nd! I’ll even trade you the 14th.

Reply

JohnSteigerwald

in August 31st, 2010 @ 06:59

The first and 2nd amendments are the two most important amendments.

Reply

Federalist10

in August 31st, 2010 @ 09:28

I wish I could recall who said it, but there’s a famous line that says, “Without the Second Amendment, we wouldn’t have the First.”

Reply

JohnSteigerwald

in August 31st, 2010 @ 09:42

Exactly.

Reply

Lefty

in August 31st, 2010 @ 17:00

Well I’m sure the 30,000 Americans who are killed by guns each year appreciate their right to bear arms…. idiots.

Reply

JohnSteigerwald

in August 31st, 2010 @ 20:03

Are they killed by guns or be people who shoot them? Would you prefer that ONLY the criminals have guns ro do you think that criminals would make an exception and obey just the gun laws?

Reply

Lefty

in September 1st, 2010 @ 00:00

John, that line is so tired. Give it up. I expect more out of you. You put knives in the hands of those 30,000 murderers and the death toll drops to under a thousand. There, I just saved 29,000 American lives. Why are you helping kill more of them? Hiding behind “People kill people” and “If you outlaw guns they’ll only wind up in the hands of criminals” HELLO?!?!? They’re legal and they’re already killing 30,000 people per year. Are you kidding me, John? Only criminals have guns. You can’t possibly be that stupid.
Or how about this. We’ve tried it your way for 230 years and this is where it’s led. Let’s try it my way for just 5 and see what happens.
You stop the production of guns (except hunting rifles) and bullets and see what happens to gun deaths in 5 years.

JohnSteigerwald

in September 1st, 2010 @ 09:32

Where people are allowed to own and carry guns, the crime rates go DOWN. They outlawed guns in Great Britiain and home invasions skyrocketed. Burglars used to at least wait until they thought nobody was home. When they knew the guns were gon, they started going into people’s homes and violent crime INCREASED. The guns can’t kill people on their own. How many of crimes are committed by legal gun owners? Almost none. Several years ago a female reporter at KDKA (she’s no longer there) did a story about the East End Rapist who had been raping women in their homes. The piece was advice for women on how to protect themselves. The reporter suggested self defense classes, changing their routines, not going out alone and several other things. The one thing she didn’t suggest was getting a gun. When I mentioned that to her she got a horrified look on her face. I told her that if my daugher lived in that area she would have already bought a gun and learned how to use it. If the East End rapist got word that there had been a huge increase in handgun purchases by women in Shadyside and Squirrel Hill, do you think that might effect his behavior a little bit? Of course, the second ammendment isn’t about self-defense anyway. I assume you’re aware of that.

Reply

Mario4Prez

in August 29th, 2010 @ 15:52

So you’d have no problem with a Constitutional Amendment that outlawed discrimination? While we’re on the subject, how do you, as a strict constructionist, feel about the movement led by some on the right to essentially cross out the 14th Amendment?

Reply

JohnSteigerwald

in August 29th, 2010 @ 18:21

Some want to repeal it because it’s been misinterpreted. That’s a perfectly legitimate position to take. All they have to do is get 3/4 of the state legislatures to go along with it. I might disagree with an amendment but it would be a lot easier to deal with than a judge interpreting the constitution because he thinks it’s a living document. It’s not.

Reply

Tim

in August 30th, 2010 @ 11:43

If it has been misinterpreted, then all you need to do is appoint judges who agree with that viewpoint. The fact that Lindsay Graham among others is calling for repeal implies that he believes the 14th Amendment does grant birthright citizenship and repealing that portion of it is his remedy.

Reply

JohnSteigerwald

in August 30th, 2010 @ 12:00

Fine. Get 3/4 of the states to agree and repeal it.

Reply

Scootermojo

in August 29th, 2010 @ 20:34

john, you’ve said before that i was overreacting in previous blog comments towards my opinion of evidence of reverse discrimination but the very article you posted a link to is yet again further proof of discrimination against whites.

the very headline of the article is “Miss. Middle School Bars Black Students From Running For Class President” yet several paragraphs into the article it mentions how other positions of student government were available to only blacks…it’s as if this fact was just a mere afterthought in the story.

also, the person who complained about this policy had a child that was not black who wanted to run for a position that only blacks were only qualified to hold because of their ethnicity. again, this fact is treated as an afterthought.

the story blatantly states from the very beginning that it’s an issue where blacks are being discriminated against yet fails miserably in prominently mentioning how whites are being discriminated against for other positions and only mentions the second issue in passing.

if there were a school or some other institution where the policy makers at hand legislated that only blacks could hold certain positions, employment or whatever….something that does indeed happen….and a white person complained the news story would never be picked up or would barely be a blip on the local news let alone grab national headlines as this did.
Reply

Mario4Prez

in August 29th, 2010 @ 22:58

You’re right John, it’d be a lot easier if we treated the Constitution as if it were etched in stone. It would be easy, but it would also be wrong. The Constitution MUST change with the times or it risks becoming obsolete. For example, how would you apply laws written in the 1700s to the internet? What about intellectual property? That’s why we have a Supreme Court, to INTERPRET the Constitution and apply it to modern issues. We can’t all live in the 18th century.

Reply

JohnSteigerwald

in August 30th, 2010 @ 10:05

There are basic principles that never change…one of them is the freedom to associate with who you want to associate with. The internet is nothing more than the written word. It just reaches more people. I don’t see how the 1st Ammendment doesn’t apply.
The second amendment gives individuals the right to bear arms. I don’t see any reason to change the interpretation of that. The 10th amendment has probably been abused more than any other by the federal govt. I don’t see what is different now from 200 years ago, The feds stay out of the state’s business unless the constitution explicitly gives it the power. Those things just don’t change. Madison said he couldn’t find a clause in the constitution that gave the federal government the right to take money from one citizen and give it to another for the purpose of benevolence. That was true when he said it 210 years ago and it’s still true. If you think times have changed, fine—get 3/4 of the state to pass an amendment. The founders knew what they were doing when they made it a pain in the ass to change what they had written because the core principles NEVER were intended to change.

Reply

Tim

in August 30th, 2010 @ 11:40

And Alexander Hamilton argued for a much broader interpretation of the taxes and spending clause. So there was even disagreement in that time.

In reference to Mr. Madison, he did not live to see the 16th amendment which granted the government the right to tax income from people, so that part of his argument has been rendered moot.

Reply

JohnSteigerwald

in August 30th, 2010 @ 11:59

What part of the 16th ammendment gives the federal government power to give money to constituents for the purpose of benevolence. The federal government collected other kinds of taxes. How does the income tax—which may not have actually been legally ratified—change anyting?

Reply

Tim

in August 30th, 2010 @ 12:11

Please tell me you’re not one of those people who believes the argument that Ohio wasn’t a state until 1953? Then why did they have a full Congressional delegation all that time? And even if Ohio wasn’t a state eventually 42 states in total approved it thus making the Ohio argument moot.

Reply

JohnSteigerwald

in August 30th, 2010 @ 14:39

I don;t know about that. I’ve heard from time to time that there were states where it was not legally ratified. I really don’t care.It should be repealed. Yesterday.

Reply

Federalist10

in August 30th, 2010 @ 14:56

If not immediately repealed (which I agree with), I think there’s a valid argument that automatic withholding is not authorized under the amendment. I’m damn certain that people would be a lot more interested in what the government’s doing if they had to write the check every April 15th instead of crossing their fingers and hoping for a refund.

Reply

JohnSteigerwald

in August 30th, 2010 @ 15:14

How about if you were paid in cash and you had to stop at the federal income tax booth, the state tax booth, the SS booth, the medicare booth and the property tax booth on our way out the door and count out the cash at each booth? It would take a month and people would be rioting in the streets.

Reply

HARRYCOX

in August 30th, 2010 @ 03:10

DID YOU READ THE COMMENTS ON THE MISSISSIPPI MIDDLE SCHOOL ARTICLE, JOHN?

IT LOOKS LIKE ABCNEWS LEFT OUT ONE LITTLE TIDBIT ABOUT THE ELECTION PROCESS AT THAT MIDDLE SCHOOL. EVERY YEAR THEY WOULD ALTERNATE WHICH RACE COULD BE PRESIDENT. ONE YEAR IT WOULD BE A WHITE STUDENT, THE NEXT YEAR IT WOULD BE A BLACK STUDENT, I WONDER HOW THEY “OVERLOOKED” THIS LITTLE PIECE OF INFORMATION?

GUESS WHO RUNS ABCNEWS/DISNEY BY THE WAY, JOHN? IT LOOKS LIKE MEMBERS OF “THE TRIBE” ARE TRYING TO STOKE THE FLAMES OF RACISM TO DIVERT ATTENTION AWAY FROM WHAT’S HAPPENING ON WALL STREET, THE GOVERNMENT, AND THE GAZA STRIP,

Reply

JohnSteigerwald

in August 30th, 2010 @ 10:08

Yeah,Harry, let’s round ‘em up. Thanks for keeping an eye on ‘em for us. You’re a great American. (Cue the Twilight Zone music.)

Reply

Paul

in August 30th, 2010 @ 11:53

The media should do a better job in bringing into view the political philosophies of politicians, rather than opting for out-of-context sound bites to be debated endlessly by a panel of idiots.

Ron and Rand Paul give me hope that we can eventually take back the GOP from the neo-cons. Of course, Beck’s rally over the weekend gives me little hope that the neo-con cycle will ever really end.

Reply

Scootermojo

in August 30th, 2010 @ 12:51

Paul, good comment…if neo-cons and morons like beck are ousted from the GOP I would have much more respect for them and hold conservatives opinions in a much higher regard.

my biggest problem with the GOP is in how it has been infiltrated by religious zealots….religion has no place in politics.
Reply

Richard

in August 30th, 2010 @ 12:56

Yeah. Barry Goldwater would be considered a fringe weirdo by the neo-cons if he were around today.

Reply

Mario4Prez

in August 30th, 2010 @ 12:41

Where does it end John? What if, instead of a resteraunt, I owned a pharmacy and refused to service blacks? What if that was the only pharmacy in town? Wouldn’t I be exercising my freedom of association if I told the black guy that I won’t fill his insulin prescription?

Reply

JohnSteigerwald

in August 30th, 2010 @ 14:42

Yes you would. And that would make you a rotten despicable person, which, in a free country, you should be permitted to be. That would also be a really bad business decision because most people would boycott your store when your policy became known.

Reply

Mike

in August 30th, 2010 @ 20:39

It would be a REALLY bad business decision because the Federal Gov’t would refuse to let medicare beneficiaries do business with a pharmacist who discriminated based on race.

Reply

JohnSteigerwald

in August 31st, 2010 @ 06:57

More evidence of the overreach of the feds. The federal government shouldn’t be in the medicine business.

Reply

Mike

in August 31st, 2010 @ 20:59

that was bush providing prescription drug benefits to grandma and grandpa i believe.

Reply

JohnSteigerwald

in September 1st, 2010 @ 09:22

The Republicans got what they deserved for acting like liberal democrats.

Reply

Mario4Prez

in August 31st, 2010 @ 17:05

So to clarify, you think that making potential life and death decisions based on racial prejudice should be legal. Freedom of association means I don’t have to spend my free time yukking it up with black people if I don’t want to. It doesn’t mean that I can pick and choose who I provide goods and services to when I open a business to the public.

Reply

JohnSteigerwald

in August 31st, 2010 @ 20:03

Actually, it does.

Tweet @John

Advertisements

Past Postings

Archives

Most Popular Posts

Links

Tags

WHY RAND PAUL IS (WAS) RIGHT

Leave a comment

Comments RSS TrackBack 62 comments

Chad Farthouse

Mike

Mike

Mike

Satire 24/7

Lefty

Federalist10

Lefty

Tim

Tim

Tim

Tim

Tim

Federalist10

Lefty

Mike

Lefty

Federalist10

Lefty

Lefty

Tim

Scootermojo

Tim

Tim

Federalist10

Paul

Scootermojo

Richard

Mike

Mike