Paul: No repeal of civil rights law
I know this is old news, somewhat. I wasn't going to post
because there were a tremendous amount of white folks, Conservative
Republicans,Independents & Democrats that were outraged &
disappointed at the comments made by Republican Senate nominee Randy
Paul. I know the conservative Republicans were doing a lot of damage
control but there were still a lot of Republicans that were just down
right outraged. There are a lot of folks black & white that feel
Paul was only saying in public what a lot of conservative Republicans
& others say behind closed doors & the folks that lashed out
were only being politically correct. You cannot keep your friends close
& your enemies closer by telling them how you really feel &
disrespecting them in public. The Republicans are trying to persuade a
large number of conservative minorities to vote Republican & Paul
statements are not helping. It would be interesting to see how many
private businesses & corporations would discriminating
against racial minorities, but the question would be, would it spread
to other issues? Some say, most Universities & private elite
businesses & social clubs like a private golf course already
practice what Paul suggested.
---------
Here's the article:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0510/37550.html
Republican Senate nominee Rand Paul – and the GOP leaders newly lashed to him – are scrambling to control the damage from
interviews in which he’s questioned whether the government should
prevent private businesses from discriminating against racial
minorities. Paul issued a statement Thursday afternoon saying he was the
victim of baseless liberal attacks, and he stated “unequivocally” that
he “will not support any efforts to repeal the Civil Rights Act of
1964.” And in a damage-control interview with conservative radio talk
show host Laura Ingraham, Paul seemed to indicate he actually was
supportive of at least some elements of the original law. "There was a
need for federal intervention to say that you can't have segregation,
that we shouldn't be doing that," he said.
There was no rush in Washington to lend Paul a hand. Instead, GOP
leaders seemed more anxious to ensure that the Senate candidate didn't
hijack the party's message and send it back 45 years. The top two Senate
Republican leaders, Kentucky’s Mitch McConnell and Jon Kyl of Arizona,
declined to say whether they agreed with Paul early in the day. When
McConnell’s camp finally did issue a statement, it was from his
spokesman, not from the Senate minority leader himself – and it was
frosty.
“Among Sen. McConnell’s most vivid memories and most formative events in
his career was watching his boss, Sen. John Sherman Cooper, help pull
together the votes to break the filibuster and pass the Civil Rights Act
of 1964,” McConnell spokesman Don Stewart said. “He has always
considered the law a monumental achievement for the country and is glad
to hear Dr. Paul supports it as well.” There’s no love lost between
McConnell and Paul, the anti-establishment, tea-party-backed insurgent
who thrashed the minority leader’s hand-picked primary candidate –
though a McConnell insider said Wednesday the two camps had begun to
reconcile.
As Republicans kept their distance, Paul's Democratic opponent, state
attorney general Jack Conway, ripped in.
"Rejecting a fundamental provision of the Civil Rights Act is a
rejection of where we have come in the last 50 years as Americans,"
Conway told POLITICO in an interview. "I find it very troubling." Conway
also sought to use Paul's views on desegregation to broaden the case
against the libertarian-leaning eye doctor, suggesting his
anti-government views were out of the mainstream. "The problem with Rand
Paul is that he has such a narrow and rigid philosophy that it gets him
into trouble on issues," said the Democrat. "And it's not just on the
Civil Rights Act — look at his comments on the Americans with Disability
Act on OSHA regulations. So what about consumer protection, what about
the FDA? Does he think business ought to be completely left alone by the
federal government? Does he want to leave Wall Street alone? Look where
that got us."
Conway said he had no plans at the moment to air TV or radio ads against
Paul on the Civil Rights Act but was doing a slew of local and national
media interviews on the topic.
Senior Senate Republicans seemed to be taken aback by Paul’s original
comments, and GOP operatives worried about the prospect of a national
debate relitigating a law that’s been on the books for almost all of
Paul’s life. Paul dodged Wednesday night when MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow
asked him whether he would have supported the landmark 1964 act.
“I don’t know what he means by that,” Texas Sen. John Cornyn, the
chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, told POLITICO
on Thursday. “I support nondiscrimination of people, so I would need to
talk to him to see what precisely his concerns were.” Kyl — the No. 2
Republican in the Senate — said he watched Paul’s exchange with Maddow
on Wednesday night and suggested that Paul should have avoided “engaging
in a theoretical debate with her.”
“I think the two of them were having a bit of good time having a debate
like you had at 2 a.m. in the morning when you’re going to college, but
it doesn’t have a lot to do with anything,” Kyl said. Asked if he agreed
with Paul’s view, Kyl said: “You’re trying to go back to the 1960s and
redebate all that, and I’m just not going to go to it. I think he was
trying to say that.”
Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions, the ranking Republican on the Judiciary
Committee, said Thursday that he can understand how Paul reached that
conclusion – based on his libertarian-leaning views – but he said that
the law is settled, should not be changed and the country should not
reopen the “painful” period in American history. “My view is that issue
has been settled – the courts have ruled on it,” Sessions said. “If you
open a restaurant, a hotel to the public then you can’t discriminate on
who you allow to come in and out, I think that’s settled. I think
America is better off that the segregation views are over, and that
played a role in it. ... But if you take a more libertarian view, a
stronger view of private party, you could reach the conclusion he
reached.”
Asked if he agreed with Paul’s conclusion, Sessions said: “I don’t
support that.” On Thursday, Paul went into overdrive to contain the
fallout of his damaging statements from the night before. Speaking with
Ingraham, Paul chalked up the focus on his comments to unfounded attacks
by the “loony left.” "I’ve never really favored any change in the Civil
Rights Act," he said. He reiterated that view in
his statement – although he did not say explicitly that he thought the
federal government should have stepped in to prevent discrimination by
private businesses as opposed to government agencies.
“The issue of civil rights is one with a tortured history in this
country. We have made great strides, but there is still work to be done
to ensure the great promise of Liberty is granted to all Americans,”
Paul said.
“This much is clear: The federal government has far overreached in its
power grabs. Just look at the recent national healthcare schemes, which
my opponent supports. The federal government, for the first time ever,
is mandating that individuals purchase a product. The federal government
is out of control, and those who love liberty and value individual and
state's rights must stand up to it.” He dismissed the flap over his
comments as proof that “the liberal establishment is desperate to keep
leaders like me out of office,” and he said that there are sure to be
more “more wild, dishonest smears during this campaign.”
Paul has made similar statements about discrimination laws to his
hometown press, but the controversy flared anew after interviews he had
with National Public Radio and MSNBC’s Maddow. On Wednesday night,
Maddow asked Paul: “Do you think that a private business has the right
to say, ‘We don't serve black people?’” Paul responded: “Yes. I'm not in
favor of any discrimination of any form. I would never belong to any
club that excluded anybody for race. We still do have private clubs in
America that can discriminate based on race. “But I think what's
important about this debate is not written into any specific ‘gotcha’ on
this, but asking the question: What about freedom of speech? Should we
limit speech from people we find abhorrent? 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 freedom requires is that we allow people to be boorish and
uncivilized.”
Although Cornyn declined to embrace Paul’s views, he said that Conway is
a “lefty” who will have his own problems with the state’s conservative
voters — and added that Paul’s comments were no worse than Richard
Blumenthal’s, the Connecticut Democratic Senate candidate who has made
misleading statements about his military service. “I think it was sort
of a gotcha question,” Cornyn said of Maddow’s approach. “If I’m walking
down the street minding my own business and somebody sticks a
microphone under my nose about a law that was passed 40 years ago,
without more detail — I think it probably caught him a little bit by
surprise.” Paul’s views on the Civil Rights Act aren’t the only ones
that have Senate Republicans scratching their heads. Paul has also
called for eliminating the Department of Education, saying that
education issues should be dealt with at the state and local levels.
Asked if he agreed, Cornyn said: “I don’t see any political consensus
for that. So that’s not something I would be pushing.”
Kyl sounded similarly skeptical. “There are a lot of people that would
like to see less government involvement in education. As a general
proposition, I agree with that. But is it realistic to assume that you
can dismantle that department in the year 2010?” Similarly, Sessions was
opposed to the idea of eliminating the department. And both men threw
cold water on Paul’s idea of imposing term limits on members of
Congress. Kyl said the better approach is the GOP conference’s policy of
term limits on committee chairmen and ranking members, and Cornyn said
imposing limits on lawmakers’ service would empower “unelected,
unaccountable” federal staff to serve endlessly and run the government
at the expense of constituents who may want lawmakers to continue
serving on Capitol Hill.
Cornyn predicted that Paul would win in November and said he told Paul
that the NRSC was prepared to help him out in the general election. But
asked generally if Paul’s views were out of the mainstream in the Senate
GOP Conference, Cornyn said there’s a “very respectable body of opinion
among conservatives and that is essentially libertarian.”
Yours truly,
Anthony Smith
because there were a tremendous amount of white folks, Conservative
Republicans,Independents & Democrats that were outraged &
disappointed at the comments made by Republican Senate nominee Randy
Paul. I know the conservative Republicans were doing a lot of damage
control but there were still a lot of Republicans that were just down
right outraged. There are a lot of folks black & white that feel
Paul was only saying in public what a lot of conservative Republicans
& others say behind closed doors & the folks that lashed out
were only being politically correct. You cannot keep your friends close
& your enemies closer by telling them how you really feel &
disrespecting them in public. The Republicans are trying to persuade a
large number of conservative minorities to vote Republican & Paul
statements are not helping. It would be interesting to see how many
private businesses & corporations would discriminating
against racial minorities, but the question would be, would it spread
to other issues? Some say, most Universities & private elite
businesses & social clubs like a private golf course already
practice what Paul suggested.
---------
Here's the article:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0510/37550.html
Republican Senate nominee Rand Paul – and the GOP leaders newly lashed to him – are scrambling to control the damage from
interviews in which he’s questioned whether the government should
prevent private businesses from discriminating against racial
minorities. Paul issued a statement Thursday afternoon saying he was the
victim of baseless liberal attacks, and he stated “unequivocally” that
he “will not support any efforts to repeal the Civil Rights Act of
1964.” And in a damage-control interview with conservative radio talk
show host Laura Ingraham, Paul seemed to indicate he actually was
supportive of at least some elements of the original law. "There was a
need for federal intervention to say that you can't have segregation,
that we shouldn't be doing that," he said.
There was no rush in Washington to lend Paul a hand. Instead, GOP
leaders seemed more anxious to ensure that the Senate candidate didn't
hijack the party's message and send it back 45 years. The top two Senate
Republican leaders, Kentucky’s Mitch McConnell and Jon Kyl of Arizona,
declined to say whether they agreed with Paul early in the day. When
McConnell’s camp finally did issue a statement, it was from his
spokesman, not from the Senate minority leader himself – and it was
frosty.
“Among Sen. McConnell’s most vivid memories and most formative events in
his career was watching his boss, Sen. John Sherman Cooper, help pull
together the votes to break the filibuster and pass the Civil Rights Act
of 1964,” McConnell spokesman Don Stewart said. “He has always
considered the law a monumental achievement for the country and is glad
to hear Dr. Paul supports it as well.” There’s no love lost between
McConnell and Paul, the anti-establishment, tea-party-backed insurgent
who thrashed the minority leader’s hand-picked primary candidate –
though a McConnell insider said Wednesday the two camps had begun to
reconcile.
As Republicans kept their distance, Paul's Democratic opponent, state
attorney general Jack Conway, ripped in.
"Rejecting a fundamental provision of the Civil Rights Act is a
rejection of where we have come in the last 50 years as Americans,"
Conway told POLITICO in an interview. "I find it very troubling." Conway
also sought to use Paul's views on desegregation to broaden the case
against the libertarian-leaning eye doctor, suggesting his
anti-government views were out of the mainstream. "The problem with Rand
Paul is that he has such a narrow and rigid philosophy that it gets him
into trouble on issues," said the Democrat. "And it's not just on the
Civil Rights Act — look at his comments on the Americans with Disability
Act on OSHA regulations. So what about consumer protection, what about
the FDA? Does he think business ought to be completely left alone by the
federal government? Does he want to leave Wall Street alone? Look where
that got us."
Conway said he had no plans at the moment to air TV or radio ads against
Paul on the Civil Rights Act but was doing a slew of local and national
media interviews on the topic.
Senior Senate Republicans seemed to be taken aback by Paul’s original
comments, and GOP operatives worried about the prospect of a national
debate relitigating a law that’s been on the books for almost all of
Paul’s life. Paul dodged Wednesday night when MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow
asked him whether he would have supported the landmark 1964 act.
“I don’t know what he means by that,” Texas Sen. John Cornyn, the
chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, told POLITICO
on Thursday. “I support nondiscrimination of people, so I would need to
talk to him to see what precisely his concerns were.” Kyl — the No. 2
Republican in the Senate — said he watched Paul’s exchange with Maddow
on Wednesday night and suggested that Paul should have avoided “engaging
in a theoretical debate with her.”
“I think the two of them were having a bit of good time having a debate
like you had at 2 a.m. in the morning when you’re going to college, but
it doesn’t have a lot to do with anything,” Kyl said. Asked if he agreed
with Paul’s view, Kyl said: “You’re trying to go back to the 1960s and
redebate all that, and I’m just not going to go to it. I think he was
trying to say that.”
Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions, the ranking Republican on the Judiciary
Committee, said Thursday that he can understand how Paul reached that
conclusion – based on his libertarian-leaning views – but he said that
the law is settled, should not be changed and the country should not
reopen the “painful” period in American history. “My view is that issue
has been settled – the courts have ruled on it,” Sessions said. “If you
open a restaurant, a hotel to the public then you can’t discriminate on
who you allow to come in and out, I think that’s settled. I think
America is better off that the segregation views are over, and that
played a role in it. ... But if you take a more libertarian view, a
stronger view of private party, you could reach the conclusion he
reached.”
Asked if he agreed with Paul’s conclusion, Sessions said: “I don’t
support that.” On Thursday, Paul went into overdrive to contain the
fallout of his damaging statements from the night before. Speaking with
Ingraham, Paul chalked up the focus on his comments to unfounded attacks
by the “loony left.” "I’ve never really favored any change in the Civil
Rights Act," he said. He reiterated that view in
his statement – although he did not say explicitly that he thought the
federal government should have stepped in to prevent discrimination by
private businesses as opposed to government agencies.
“The issue of civil rights is one with a tortured history in this
country. We have made great strides, but there is still work to be done
to ensure the great promise of Liberty is granted to all Americans,”
Paul said.
“This much is clear: The federal government has far overreached in its
power grabs. Just look at the recent national healthcare schemes, which
my opponent supports. The federal government, for the first time ever,
is mandating that individuals purchase a product. The federal government
is out of control, and those who love liberty and value individual and
state's rights must stand up to it.” He dismissed the flap over his
comments as proof that “the liberal establishment is desperate to keep
leaders like me out of office,” and he said that there are sure to be
more “more wild, dishonest smears during this campaign.”
Paul has made similar statements about discrimination laws to his
hometown press, but the controversy flared anew after interviews he had
with National Public Radio and MSNBC’s Maddow. On Wednesday night,
Maddow asked Paul: “Do you think that a private business has the right
to say, ‘We don't serve black people?’” Paul responded: “Yes. I'm not in
favor of any discrimination of any form. I would never belong to any
club that excluded anybody for race. We still do have private clubs in
America that can discriminate based on race. “But I think what's
important about this debate is not written into any specific ‘gotcha’ on
this, but asking the question: What about freedom of speech? Should we
limit speech from people we find abhorrent? 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 freedom requires is that we allow people to be boorish and
uncivilized.”
Although Cornyn declined to embrace Paul’s views, he said that Conway is
a “lefty” who will have his own problems with the state’s conservative
voters — and added that Paul’s comments were no worse than Richard
Blumenthal’s, the Connecticut Democratic Senate candidate who has made
misleading statements about his military service. “I think it was sort
of a gotcha question,” Cornyn said of Maddow’s approach. “If I’m walking
down the street minding my own business and somebody sticks a
microphone under my nose about a law that was passed 40 years ago,
without more detail — I think it probably caught him a little bit by
surprise.” Paul’s views on the Civil Rights Act aren’t the only ones
that have Senate Republicans scratching their heads. Paul has also
called for eliminating the Department of Education, saying that
education issues should be dealt with at the state and local levels.
Asked if he agreed, Cornyn said: “I don’t see any political consensus
for that. So that’s not something I would be pushing.”
Kyl sounded similarly skeptical. “There are a lot of people that would
like to see less government involvement in education. As a general
proposition, I agree with that. But is it realistic to assume that you
can dismantle that department in the year 2010?” Similarly, Sessions was
opposed to the idea of eliminating the department. And both men threw
cold water on Paul’s idea of imposing term limits on members of
Congress. Kyl said the better approach is the GOP conference’s policy of
term limits on committee chairmen and ranking members, and Cornyn said
imposing limits on lawmakers’ service would empower “unelected,
unaccountable” federal staff to serve endlessly and run the government
at the expense of constituents who may want lawmakers to continue
serving on Capitol Hill.
Cornyn predicted that Paul would win in November and said he told Paul
that the NRSC was prepared to help him out in the general election. But
asked generally if Paul’s views were out of the mainstream in the Senate
GOP Conference, Cornyn said there’s a “very respectable body of opinion
among conservatives and that is essentially libertarian.”
Yours truly,
Anthony Smith
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Anthony on
-
Fred Phelps, feel free to be the spineless coward that you are & hide behind a keyboard & make your childish comment. It's more like a rant or an online tantrum.
-
-
This is a article from The Council of Conservative Citizens website.
http://cofcc.org/
Could you imagine if big name white political figures and white pop stars were speaking at something called a “White Power Convention?” The media would go crazy. It would easily be the biggest news story in America. Thousands of white leftists would harass the hotel and call in death threats.
The convention is being organized by the “New Black Panther Party” (NBPP) a violent Nation of Islam splinter group. The convention is being billed as “a Tribute to Khallid Muhammed.” According to the NBPP website, the conference is endorsed the NAACP, the SCLC, and others like the “African People’s Socialist Party.”
Celebrities include grammy winning pop star Andre 3000, black actor and pop star Orlando Brown, raps stars Prof. Griff, and Bun B, daytime tv’s Judge Hatchet, and actor Tim Reid. Major black political figures Louis Farrakhan, and former congresswoman Cynthia McKinney.
--------
Randy Paul & the Tea Party Organizers should move their head quarters to Cleveland, Ohio. He would win by a landslide. There would be a lot of black folks, especially black women supporting him. I know, it seem like a have a problem with Cleveland, Ohio. True, but honestly, Steve Wonder would see the colors red, white & blue before black people, especially black women in Cleveland, Ohio see a racist elite white, Asian, Indian & middle Eastern person. Not saying every elite white, Asian, Indian & middle eastern person in Cleveland, Ohio in the academic sector or small business community is racist, but black people in Cleveland, Ohio let down their shield all the way, as long as their being show a lil' love. Unless it's coming from another black person showing them love than they may still give you a attitude, especially black women. Black folks in Cleveland, Ohio seem to be under the impression that because someone is a minority or a person of color their the same as being black. Matter fact, the Council of Conservative Citizens should move their national head quarters to Cleveland, Ohio & run all their chapters in over 40 States in America from Cleveland, Ohio including their chapters in Europe, Italia, Portuguese, Spanish, Croatia, Australia, New Zealand, Canada & Ireland. They can run it all from Cleveland, Ohio. These black folks in Cleveland, Ohio would invite them to some of their Cabaret parties, night clubs black women would sit over white women like they are their mothers protecting them from all the savage black men. Black folks in Cleveland, Ohio would invite them members of the Council of Conservative Citizens & any other racist elite organization to their Supreme Order of the Amaranth lodges & their United Grand Masonic Prince Hall lodges. As long as black women got them nursing jobs or a human resource job they think their conservative & elite enough to be on a certain level. I"ll tell you the true, Randy Paul will receive a lot of support in Cleveland, Ohio. All he have to do is apologize for making a few racist statements & he is no longer a racist.
© 2024 Created by Raliegh Jones Jr..
Powered by
