NORTON META TAG

Showing posts with label Civil Rights Act. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Civil Rights Act. Show all posts

04 February 2011

Reagan’s Legacy (at 100) & REMEMBERING BENJAMIN LINDER from SOJOURNERS 3FEB11 & LIBERATIONTHEOLOGY.ORG

IT was during reagan's presidency that I was arrested at the cia for taking part in a non violent protest against his illegal covert wars in Central America. I still remember the event that outraged me enough go to the protest and be arrested. Benjamin Linder was a 27 year old American performing humanitarian work in Nicaragua when he was murdered on 28 APR 1987 along with two Nicaraguans, Sergio Hernandez and Pablo Rosales by cia supported contra rebels. To me, this represented the real reagan, someone who would be smiling at you while sticking a knife in your gut, and then walk away laughing. His administration was evil, corrupt and served the greedy interest of the wealthy and the military-industrial complex. This remembrance of him on what would be his 100th birthday this Sunday, 6 FEB 2011, from Sojourners followed by a remembrance of Benjamin Linder, Sergio Hernandez and Pablo Rosales from LiberationTheology.org
This Sunday would be Ronald Reagan’s 100th birthday, and the predictable tributes have come from across the political spectrum. President Barack Obama, for instance, wrote in USA Today, “No matter what political disagreements you may have had with President Reagan, and I certainly had my share, there is no denying his leadership in the world, or his gift for communicating his vision for America.” Mitt Romney called Reagan “a transformative president.”
Most commentators praise Reagan for his “optimism” and personal affability. But, as we wrote after his passing in 2004:
[P]residents — as all leaders — must be judged by history not on the basis of their personal likeability, but by the real-world effects of their policies. And Reagan’s policies were disastrous and destructive. While poverty worsened at home and abroad, he spent hundreds of billions of dollars on the largest peacetime military buildup in history, including $80 billion (and counting) for the fantasy of Star Wars and tens of billions for first-strike-capable nuclear weapons. Conventional wisdom, of course, holds that Reagan’s militarism “brought down the wall” of communism. Historians might well debate the opposite view: That his militaristic approach helped bolster the hardliners in the Soviet Union and forestalled rather than caused the inevitable downfall of the USSR and the end of the Cold War.
The Reagan administration ignored the burgeoning AIDS epidemic while tens of thousands died. Reagan’s crew sold arms to Iran — illegally — to support the U.S.-initiated contra war in Central America, where tens of thousands of other people died. The U.S. wars in Central America — mostly fought through death squads, paramilitaries, and U.S.-backed local armies — resulted in the death of untold thousands throughout the region, bookended by the 1980 murders of four U.S. churchwomen and the 1989 assassination of six Jesuits and their housekeeper and her daughter in El Salvador.
Closer to home, Reagan’s policies were equally devastating. He opposed virtually every civil and human rights initiative, from the 1964 Civil Rights Act through and including efforts to dismantle South Africa’s apartheid regime. On virtually every social issue – from race, welfare, and tax policy to school lunch programs and the environment – Reagan’s policies worked against the interests of the poor and marginalized and further enriched the wealthy and powerful.
Reagan’s most destructive legacy could very well be the mania for “deregulation” that he unleashed, starting with his declaration in his first Inaugural address that “Government is not the solution to our problem. Government is the problem.” Reagan’s intensive assault on checks and balances and the removal of reasonable constraints started a wave that washed up decades later as the tsunami that swamped Wall Street.
So go ahead, praise Reagan as a likeable man. Hold him up as a model of civility in contrast to the flame-throwing rhetoric his successors wield today. Even give him credit for recognizing the horror of nuclear weapons and seeking their abolition. But don’t let the revisionists whitewash one of the most damaging presidencies of the 20th century and the dangerous legacy it left us.
Jim Rice is editor of Sojourners magazine.


Ben Linder
(1959-1987)

The gift of a dreamer


"Ben Linder reminds me very much of those women and men who came from the South in the Civil Rights movement and by whose sacrifice and suffering we have the opportunity to be as free as we are in these United States... Black and white, Protestant, Catholic and Jewish. Ben Linder, I understand happened to be Jewish. The intensity of his dedication is really one of the finest examples of the prophetic and service tradition of Judaism in the world today."
"This was not an accidental death. This was a deliberate assassination. They knew he was an American. They knew what he was doing. He was simply building dams to provide fresh water and electricity to people in villages. But when you look at the other people the [Nicaraguan] contra have killed -- there were eight other foreign volunteer workers killed before Ben Linder. Approximately 100 medical workers killed. And a Baptist Center burned to the ground. There were more than 300 school teachers that have been killed. The war of the contras is not a war against the Sandinista government. It's a war against the Nicaraguan people -- against teachers, doctors, people trying to grow food."
"The United States of America cannot consider itself a bastion of freedom and human dignity if it continues to support the likes of these contras..."
"Ben Linder gave his life for us, that we might become partners in development, partners in freedom, with the people of Central America. God has blessed us by his sacrifice and his service. Hopefully your response tonight indicates that it will not be in vain."
Mayor Andrew Young
Memorial Service
Decatur, Georgia
May 3, 1987

 

Benjamin Linder had a dream. He wanted his life to make a difference. He wanted to contribute something important, something of service to those in need, something of his own to give back to others.
In his three and a half years in Nicaragua, this is exactly what he did. Graduating in 1983 with a degree in mechanical engineering from the University of Washington, he left his home in Oregon to live and work in Nicaragua, developing and building small hydroelectric plants in the town of El Cuá and San José de Bocay, bringing electricity to villages in northern Nicaragua for the first time.
The challenges were enormous -- battles with agency bureaucracies, uncertain water supplies through the dry and wet seasons, logistical challenges that required great ingenuity, the struggles of trying to fit into isolated communities where he was decidedly the stranger -- and always around him, the dangers of war, the fears of imminent attack by contras bent on destroying any efforts to make a success of the Nicaraguan revolution.
He didn't have to make this choice. He did not have to work in one of the most dangerous parts of the country. His doing so was a witness, a countersign to the policies of his own government in the United States.
In July 1979, the US-backed dictatorship of Anastasio Somoza was overthrown by a popular insurrection led by the Sandinista Front for National Liberation (FSLN). Not long after, the administration of President Jimmy Carter authorized the first financial and logistical assistance for the remnants of Somoza's brutal, US-trained National Guard. The original intent was to harass the new revolutionary government and try to influence the direction of its policies.
With the inauguration of President Ronald Reagan, the intent changed. Soon the secret policy goal of the US was to overthrow the Nicaraguan government. This goal was not officially acknowledged, since it is against the law. US CIA and military intelligence personnel began training the contras, built base camps for them along the border in Honduras, provided sophisticated weapons and equipment, carried out surveillance, provided logistical support, ordered the mining of Nicaraguan harbors, and provided an infamous counterinsurgency training manual that encouraged executions, torture, and other forms of terror.
The policy mushroomed into a full-fledged war, the infamous contra war, the main strategy of which was to undermine or destroy the Nicaraguan revolutionary experiment. By the war's end in 1990, over 30,000 Nicaraguans had been killed.
The US Central Intelligence Agency helped direct the war, sometimes selecting contra targets. Destruction of the country's electrical system was an essential part of the strategy.
This support continued even after Congress prohibited military aid to the contras, leading to the infamous Contragate scandal in which it was revealed that numerous US officials were involved in an illegal contra supply network.
Ben Linder's dream was cut down when he was only 27 years old. Linder and two Nicaraguans -- Sergio Hernández and Pablo Rosales -- were murdered in a contra ambush on April 28, 1987, as they had begun a day's work at the construction site for a new dam near San José de Bocay. The autopsy showed that Ben was first wounded by a grenade, then shot at point-blank range in the head. The two Nicaraguans were also murdered at close range, Rosales by a stab wound to the heart.
Linder's electrification project was indeed typical of contra targets, as were other sites in the area. Near El Cuá, the agricultural cooperative of El Cedro had been attacked three times resulting in several deaths. On March 19, 1987, four coop members tried to stave off a contra attack, providing cover for residents as they fled the assault. Two of them were killed, one a close friend of Linder's. The health clinic at the coop, its food supply center and a house were burned to the ground.
Many people involved in civilian projects supported by the government armed themselves in self-defense militias because of these attacks, and workers, including Linder, began to carry rifles. While this was later used as an excuse to justify Linder's murder by both contra and US officials, at the time of the ambush, Linder's rifle was lying on the ground and he was writing in a notebook.
In addition to sudden attacks and ambushes, land mines were a constant threat. The contras placed them on roadways used by civilian transport. Because of the poverty and isolation of the area, the main mode of transportation for most people was walking, horseback-riding, or grabbing a ride on a truck. By April 1987 scores of people had been killed or maimed in mine explosions. Even the simplest trip became a test of nerve. On May 24, 1986, a contra mine killed nine health workers on the road between El Cuá and San José de Bocay. Two months later, 35 people, including 12 children, were killed when a public transport truck ran over a mine.
Just one month before Linder's death, some 100 contras attacked the power plant in El Cuá. A mortar shell destroyed the home of the plant operators who barely escaped with their lives. In another incident, contras kidnapped a relative of one of the plant operators and threatened to kill everyone working on the project. The contras who killed Linder later admitted that they knew Linder and his work crew were building the hydroelectric plant.
The ambush was deliberate, part of a strategy to undermine support for the Sandinistas by destroying any benefits the revolution brought to the poorest of Nicaraguans, and demonstrating the cost to the people if they continued to support their government.
"My brother's death was not an accident. His death was policy," said John Linder after Ben's death.
Edgar Chamorro, a former contra leader who left the movement because of its brutality, claimed, "The CIA is very much in control of the contras. The CIA is sending a message to those in the international community who provide political support for Nicaragua that they are no longer safe there. The CIA and the contras are killing the best, the people who want the best for Nicaragua" (Witness, Vol. 70, No. 6, June 1987).
The Center for Constitutional Rights which took up the case on behalf of the family issued a report in April 1988 in which lawyers conclude: "The ambush was planned in advance and under the direct supervision of high-ranking contra leaders. The contras knew they were attacking a civilian development project and that there was at least one foreigner among its workers.
"The assassination of Benjamin Linder was part of a deliberate contra policy to murder civilians working in education, health and development programs. In 1986 the contras extended this policy of targeting development workers to include foreign as well as Nicaraguan civilians. Their goal was to dissuade foreigners from working in Nicaragua and to cut off support for development programs.
"The murder of Benjamin Linder also typifies the contra practice of executing prisoners.
"The government of the United States has armed and supplied the contras. It has trained and supervised them, and encouraged them to commit abuses through, for example, the CIA manual [Psychological Operations in Guerrilla Warfare, 1985]. As the contras developed the policies of targeting civilians and foreigners and carrying out summary executions, the US government served as an apologist for contra behavior. By its consistent and uncritical support of the contras, the US government shares responsibility for the assassination policy which resulted in Linder's murder."
Ben's death created a sensation in the US. The personal tragedy of one family became the subject of fierce ideologically divided political debate. US embassy officials in Nicaragua admitted that they not only did not investigate the incident, but had no interest in doing so.
White House spokesman Marlin Fitzwater blamed the victim, saying US citizens working in Nicaragua "put themselves in harm's way" (NYT, April 30, 1987). Of course, this was exactly the fear that Linder's murder was designed to instill in others. Assistant Secretary of State Elliott Abrams, one of the contras' foremost champions and key player in the illegal network, said Linder simply should have known better than to be in a combat zone.
In May 1987, a Congressional hearing turned into a sordid display as contra apologists on the House Western Hemisphere Subcommittee made personal attacks on Linder's family and other witnesses who came to testify in support of Linder and his work. The Village Voice reported one exchange between Ben's mother Elizabeth, who had just given moving testimony to her son's work and motivations, and rightist Republican Rep. Connie Mack of Florida.
Said Mack: "I guess what really has me upset is that I just cannot understand how you can use grief that I know you feel, use it to politicize this situation. Or to allow yourself to be used to politicize this situation... I guess the reason I find this so difficult is that I don't want to be tough on you, but I really feel you have asked for it."
Over the visible gasps and hissing from the audience, Linder responded, "That was about the most cruel thing you could have said" (Village Voice, May 26, 1987).
The murder of Ben Linder and the growing distaste in the US for the dirty war in Nicaragua finally led to the prohibition of US military aid to the contras. But the contra policy, combined with a tight economic embargo on the impoverished country, had its effect. The country has never recovered.
In Nicaragua in the last days of April 1987, people around the world were deeply moved by the dignity and grief of the Linder family as they arrived in the country to bury their son. They walked at the head of a procession that stretched for seven blocks along the streets of Matagalpa.
Included among the grief-stricken throng was a group of children dressed as clowns. Besides being an engineer, Linder was an accomplished amateur juggler and clown. He had brought his unicycle with him to Nicaragua and delighted children and adults alike in many communities by riding through the streets, participating for a time in one of the country's circuses. He used his clowning to help children overcome their fears in vaccination campaigns, or to educate them on the dangers of diseases.
Just three weeks before his death, he participated in a vaccination campaign in Bocay by dressing up as the "Measles Monster," then went house to house on his unicycle to remind families to come to the clinic to be vaccinated.
The clowns in the funeral procession had been trained by Ben, and their presence in costume was their way of paying tribute to him.
The love of the people was a mirror reflecting who Ben Linder was in Nicaragua, a human being in a place of terrible violence inflicted on the hopes of the people. He was an expression of that hope, of the belief that with determination and persistence, dreams can come true -- lights can go on even in an impoverished isolated community such as El Cuá.
Said Elizabeth Linder: "My son was brutally murdered for bringing electricity to a few poor people in northern Nicaragua. He was murdered because he had a dream and because he had the courage to make that dream come true. Not many of us can say that. What was the dream? to make it possible for the peasants of a few villages to have a light bulb in their homes so their day doesn't have to end at six o'clock when it gets dark, to get drinking water to them so that their children don't have to die of diarrhea in the first years of their lives, to raise them out of poverty so they can raise their children with hope for the future... We understand why Ben came to Nicaragua, and we now understand even better why he stayed... Ben told me the first year that he was here, and this is a quote, 'It's a wonderful feeling to work in a country where the government's first concern is for its people, for all of its people.' I am grateful that he had his three and a half years in Nicaragua."
For the Nicaraguan people, Ben's witness showed the best, instead of the worst, of North Americans. A banner held at his funeral read: El pueblo norteamericano no es el pueblo de Reagan, es el pueblo de Benjamin Linder!!! -- "The people of the United States are not the people of Ronald Reagan, they are the people of Benjamin Linder!!" The importance of this witness to a people under siege for their very hopes of light and life is incalculable -- as it is to this day -- the meaning of solidarity.
Said brother John at the funeral, "He came here because Nicaragua represents hope... He knew that the suffering of a person knew no boundaries, and that, for him, to give all he had in a country where he was not born was just the same as giving it to his people... This hope is too deep to die with one person... This hope lies within all of us. Today all of us take a part of my brother, take a part of his hope, take a part of your hope, to do what we have to until Nicaragua can live in peace."
In a journal entry dated October 5, 1984, Ben wrote into his journal the words of Rabbi David Einhorn, a pioneering reform rabbi of the 1800s: "When justice burns within us like a flaming fire, when love evokes willing sacrifice from us, when, to the last full measure of selfless devotion, we demonstrate our belief in the ultimate triumph of truth and righteousness, then your goodness enters into our lives; then you live within our hearts, and we through righteousness behold your presence.
"The bush is burning, but the Voice has not yet spoken aloud; we can only feel, guess, hope; we cannot yet hear. But it may be that we must act in order to hear.
"I'm working in El Cuá. It is...the reality of the war. Zelaya province is falling under Contra control. They are killing children.
"I've asked myself what is my path. I've asked myself about my love for Alison and my family. I've asked myself about my love for my people. But we must act before we hear.
"I must not cower from the task ahead. In Nicaragua I was shown the trail ahead. Tonight I vow to set forth upon that trail...
"Great is the eternal power at the heart of life; mighty the love that is stronger than death."
Benjamin Linder, Sergio Hernández, Pablo Rosales, ¡Presente!

The Death of Ben Linder
Book about Ben Linder by Joan Kruckewitt

28 May 2010

Rand Paul and His 9/11 Conspiracy Theorist Friend 20MAI10 from MOJO

Rand Paul continues to amaze with his honesty. He definitely is not your typical politician, and maybe that is what makes him attractive to some....with Rand Paul we have found out what he believes. I would never consider voting for him, this article from MOJO provides more reasons why.

Paul has repeatedly appeared on Alex Jones' radio show and agreed with his dark conspiratorial view of the New World Order.
Thu May. 20, 2010 10:10 AM PDT
Rand Paul, after winning the Kentucky Republican Senate primary on Tuesday, has run into reality—that is, the gap between his political and policy positions and mainstream notions. The Tea Party darling hit immediate trouble when he defended holding his victory celebration at a private country club by citing Tiger Woods. More serious, appearing on Rachel Maddow's show, Paul noted that he would not have fully endorsed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. That is because he doesn't support the government infringing upon property rights—such as the right of a business owner to discriminate on the basis of race.
Paul, like his father Ron (the libertarian Republican congressman), fancies himself a strict constitutionalist opposed to globalists and what he and others in the so-called "Patriot movement" call the New World Order. And this view of politics has led Paul to keep unusual company—such as his appearances on the radio show of Alex Jones, an anti-government conspiracy theorist and one of the more prominent proponents of the idea that the Bush administration was complicit in the 9/11 attacks.
Jones, who sees big government conspiracies elsewhere, as well, has been an enthusiastic supporter of both Ron and Rand Paul. Both men have appeared on his show, which, of course, doesn't mean they endorse his 9/11 views and other opinions. (Last December, Rand Paul's campaign communications director, Chris Hightower, resigned after a blogger exposed Hightower as an anti-Christian who believed that the US government was responsible for 9/11. The Paul campaign, asked by a local newspaper, if Paul agreed with Hightower on 9/11, said it was a "complicated situation" with "truth on both sides.") But Rand Paul has shown sympathy for Jones' overall view of a world of global conspiracies, and he has expressed support for some of Jones' unconventional ideas.
During a July 23, 2009 show, Jones, decrying the Wall Street bailout, asked Paul, "This isn't really socialism….Isn't this more akin to fascism?" Paul replied, "You're exactly right." Later on the show, while Jones was denouncing cap-and-trade legislation (which he says could lead to "toilet paper taxes") and calling for investigating Al Gore, Paul noted that should the climate bill become law, "we will have an army of armed EPA agents--thousands of them." These EPA troopers, according to Paul, would be free to burst into homes and apartments to determine if they were meeting energy-efficiency standards.
Paul also didn't say anything when Jones raised an odd charge about the Federal Reserve. During a rant about the Fed, Jones claimed "we know that the Federal Reserve was clearly implicated in the kidnapping of a congressman's baby" and commended Paul for his "courage" in taking on the Fed.  Paul replied, "I appreciate that," and he told Jones that he could not mount his Senate run "without you."
Throughout this particular show, Paul graciously accepted Jones' support for his pending Senate candidacy. He gave the impression that he and Jones were like-minded foes of the globalists and international financiers plotting to undermine, if not destroy, the United States for their own gain. And Paul noted that career politicians are no match for this enemy force: "the ones that evolve to the top of the Republican and the Democratic Party end up being the people who don't believe in anything…and they get pushed around by the New World Order types."
A month later, Paul was again a guest on Jones' show. "I can't stress enough how important this race for the Kentucky senator is," Jones exclaimed. Paul replied, "You're right."

How Christian (or religious) is Tea Party Libertarianism? from SOJO 27MAI10

Hearts & Minds by Jim Wallis This is a fascinating discussion on the tea party movement and libertarianism, comparing the philosophies of the movements to the teachings of Christianity, but it could be applied to almost every major religion in the world. It will be very interesting to see how the right wing of the Republican party and their Christian base reacts when they finally discover that Rand Paul's politics are pro choice and pro gay marriage, against the war on drugs and against immigration control as well as pro NRA and pro winner take all capitalism.

How Christian is Tea Party Libertarianism?

Get a free
trial issue of Sojourners Get a free issue of Sojourners
Donate to
Support Sojourners
Donate to support
Sojourners
The insurgent Tea Party and its Libertarian philosophy is a political phenomenon, not a religious one. Like the Democratic and Republican parties it seeks to challenge, it is a secular movement, not a Christian one. As with both major political parties, people who regard themselves as Christians may be involved in, or sympathetic to, the new Tea Party; but that doesn’t make it “Christian.” But like the philosophies and policies of the major political parties, the Tea Party can legitimately be examined on the basis of Christian principles -- and it should be.
Since the Tea Party is getting such national attention, our God’s Politics blog is going to begin a dialogue on this question: Just how Christian is the Tea Party Movement -- and the Libertarian political philosophy that lies behind it? Let me start the dialogue here. And please join in.
Libertarianism is a political philosophy that holds individual rights as its supreme value and considers government the major obstacle. It tends to be liberal on cultural and moral issues and conservative on fiscal, economic, and foreign policy. This “just leave me alone and don’t spend my money” option is growing quickly in American life, as we have seen in the Tea Party movement. Libertarianism has been an undercurrent in the Republican Party for some time, and has been in the news lately due to the primary election win of Rand Paul as the Republican candidate for a Senate seat in Kentucky. Paul has spoken like a true Libertarian, as evidenced by some of his comments since that election last week.
He cited the Civil Rights Act as an example of government interference with the rights of private business. Paul told an interviewer that he would have tried to change the provision in the 1964 Civil Rights Act that made it illegal for private businesses to discriminate on the basis of race. He answered a specific question about desegregating lunch counters by countering, “Does the owner of the restaurant own his restaurant? Or does the government own his restaurant?”
A few days later, he spoke about the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. Referring to the Obama administration’s criticisms of BP, Paul said, “I think that sounds really un-American in his criticism of business.”
Is such a philosophy Christian? In several major aspects of biblical ethics, I would suggest that Libertarianism falls short.
1. The Libertarian enshrinement of individual choice is not the pre-eminent Christian virtue. Emphasizing individual rights at the expense of others violates the common good, a central Christian teaching and tradition. The Christian answer to the question “Are we our brother’s keeper?” is decidedly “Yes.” Jesus tells us that the greatest commandment is to love God and love our neighbor. Loving your neighbor is a better Christian response than telling your neighbor to leave you alone. Both compassion and social justice are fundamental Christian commitments, and while the Christian community is responsible for living out both, government is also held accountable to the requirements of justice and mercy. Both Christians on the Right and the Left have raised questions about Libertarian abandonment of the most vulnerable -- whether that means unborn lives or the poor.
Just look at the biblical prophets in their condemnation of injustice to the poor, and how they frequently follow those statements by requiring the king (the government) to act justly (a requirement that applied both to the kings of Israel and to foreign potentates). Jeremiah, speaking of King Josiah, said, “He defended the cause of the poor and needy, and so all went well" (Jeremiah 22:16). Amos instructs the courts (the government) to “Hate evil, love good; maintain justice in the courts” (Amos 5:15). The prophets hold kings, rulers, judges, and employers accountable to the demands of justice and mercy.
2. An anti-government ideology just isn’t biblical. In Romans 13, the apostle Paul (not the Kentucky Senate candidate) describes the role and vocation of government; in addition to the church, government also plays a role in God’s plan and purposes. Preserving the social order, punishing evil and rewarding good, and protecting the common good are all prescribed; we are even instructed to pay taxes for those purposes! Sorry, Tea Party. Of course, debating the size and role of government is always a fair and good discussion, and most of us would prefer smart and effective to “big” or “small” government.
Revelation 13 depicts the state as a totalitarian beast -- a metaphor for Rome, which was persecuting the Christians. This passage serves as a clear warning about the abuse of governmental power. But a power-hungry government is clearly an aberration and violation of the proper role of government in protecting its citizens and upholding the demands of fairness and justice. To disparage government per se -- to see government as the central problem in society -- is simply not a biblical position.
3. The Libertarians’ supreme confidence in the market is not consistent with a biblical view of human nature and sin. The exclusive focus on government as the central problem ignores the problems of other social sectors, and in particular, the market. When government regulation is the enemy, the market is set free to pursue its own self-interest without regard for public safety, the common good, and the protection of the environment -- which Christians regard as God’s creation. Libertarians seem to believe in the myth of the sinless market and that the self-interest of business owners or corporations will serve the interests of society; and if they don’t, it’s not government’s role to correct it.
But such theorizing ignores the practical issues that the public sector has to solve. Should big oil companies like BP simply be allowed to spew oil into the ocean? And is regulating them really un-American? Do we really want nobody to inspect our meat, make sure our kids’ toys are safe, or police the polluters to keep our air clean? Do we really want owners of restaurants and hotels to be able to decide whom they will or won’t serve, or should liquor store owners also be able to sell alcohol to our kids? Given the reality of sin in all human institutions, doesn’t a political process that provides both accountability and checks and balances make both theological and practical sense? C.S. Lewis once said that we need democracy not because people are essentially good, but because they often are not. Democratic accountability is essential to preventing the market from becoming a beast of corporate totalitarianism – just as it is essential for the government. And God’s priorities should determine ours, not the priorities of the Chamber of Commerce.
4. The Libertarian preference for the strong over the weak is decidedly un-Christian. “Leave me alone to make my own choices and spend my own money” is a political philosophy that puts those who need help at a real disadvantage. And those who need help are central to any Christian evaluation of political philosophy. “As you have done to the least of these,” says Jesus, “You have done to me.” And “Blessed are those who are just left alone” has still not made the list of Beatitudes. To anticipate the Libertarian response, let me just say that private charity is simply not enough to satisfy the demands of either fairness or justice, let alone compassion. When the system is designed to protect the privileges of the already strong and make the weak even more defenseless and vulnerable, something is wrong with the system.
5. Finally, I am just going to say it. There is something wrong with a political movement like the Tea Party which is almost all white. Does that mean every member of the Tea Party is racist? Likely not. But is an undercurrent of white resentment part of the Tea Party ethos, and would there even be a Tea Party if the president of the United States weren’t the first black man to occupy that office? It’s time we had some honest answers to that question. And as far as I can tell, Libertarianism has never been much of a multi-cultural movement. Need I say that racism -- overt, implied, or even subtle -- is not a Christian virtue.
So that should get us started. Let’s have the dialogue about how Christian the Tea Party Movement and its Libertarian philosophy really are. Jump in!

http://go.sojo.net/ct/k74BQkn1drcV/

20 May 2010

Rand Paul Underscores the Tea Party's Connection to Race 20MAI10

More on that neo-nazi fascist racist pig, that drippings tea bagger Rand Paul. I know I shouldn't say things like that, but I can't stand deliberate ignorance and arrogance  like Rand Paul's, especially when he is so very wrong. By the by, if you haven't seen the Rachel Maddow video clips you owe it to yourself to watch them.....they are available on this blog.....as is the interview with NPR.

I'll take Rand Paul at his word. He's opposed to racial discrimination.
However, he obviously supports allowing businesses to engage in racial discrimination with impunity. Evidently, if the government says it's against the law to run a whites-only business, this is a bridge too far for Rand Paul.
Congratulations, Republicans. The man you chose to run for the vacant U.S. Senate seat from Kentucky and the man who delivered the highest profile political victory for the tea party movement has turned out to have some very twisted ideas about civil rights and race.
On the Rachel Maddow Show last night, Paul suffered an epic meltdown -- more or less admitting that he doesn't support the Americans with Disabilities Act and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which "prohibits discrimination by covered employers on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin." In other words, Paul implied that the First Amendment allows any business to be "white-only" if it chooses and the government isn't allowed to interfere.
But he's against racial discrimination. He said so.
Rand Paul's extremist position on the Civil Right Act underscores a major flaw in libertarian ideology, and it further cements the connection between the tea party movement and race.
Libertarianism, which both Ron and Rand Paul famously embrace, suggests the free market is a significant and vital component of liberty. Private businesses are capable of accomplishing everything, and government can't interfere or regulate those businesses in any way. The free market will police itself. Just leave it be.
Private industry can pave roads, educate children, put out fires and protect our streets from drunk drivers. It can shuttle our kids to corporate schools and back, it can provide clean water to our homes and they can guarantee our meat and vegetables aren't contaminated with diseases. And by the way, in a nation that's 70 percent white, private businesses can choose to do all of these things for white people only. Private businesses can provide everything we need, but only offer those services to white people.
And these businesses, according to libertarian ideology, can form monopolies if they want to. As we're all painfully aware from the health care debate, monopolies occur even in our current government-regulated system. Imagine what would happen in a totally unregulated free market.
So, in Rand Paul's utopia, not only can Woolworth's prevent black people from sitting at its soda stand if it wants to, but a private, free market police corporation can set up shop in a community, buy up any competing police corporations and announce that it no longer serves black people or Jewish people or Hispanic people or gay people -- any minority segment of the population.
Or, when public schools are eliminated, a free market education franchise can form a monopoly and ostensibly can choose turn away non-white students, potentially excluding minorities from receiving an education. And all of these businesses are allowed to consolidate with each other, forming larger monopolies, and the ability of the people to effectively fight back simultaneously decreases as unregulated corporation's financial and market power increases.
Of course these free market mega-corporations might not admit that they're engaging in discriminatory practices. Bad PR. They could lie and say that all are welcome, but then create unseen rules that prevent minorities from enrolling. No wheelchair ramps, or prohibitively expensive tuition for poorer students and so forth.
Who would hold them accountable for their lies? Who would have the financial and organizational wherewithal to take on too big to fail corporate franchises like, say, the Halliburton Police Department? Or the Bechtel Water Corporation? Or the News Corp School System?
Most libertarians claim to oppose racial discrimination, but they ultimately support a system that utterly ignores it as a business practice. Put another way, it's like being opposed to cancer, but in favor of asbestos. Rand Paul, to say nothing of a long list of other Republicans, subscribes to this free market libertarian philosophy. And he's also become a champion of the tea party movement.
A gaffe, they say, is when a politician tells the truth out loud. Rand Paul revealed that there is, in fact, a strong racial component of the tea party movement. I don't know if he realizes it or not, but Paul actually helped to vindicate anyone who has pointed out the tea party's connection with race.
Where there's racial smoke, there's racial fire. And the preponderance of evidence points to a large and serious racial aspect of the tea party. Rand Paul just happened to conveniently let it slip out, as did tea party leaders Dale Robertson and Mark Williams, who recently said that Muslims worship a "monkey god."
I can understand a movement based around smaller government and lower taxes, as long as that movement is honest and consistent (this one hasn't been, as evidenced by its eight years of virtual silence). But the positions on race held by Rand Paul and others lead me to believe that smaller government and lower taxes are merely cosmetic -- disguising uglier positions and serving as code language designed to rally certain crowds who hear these concepts and think "welfare queens" and "lazy free loaders."
Small government, in the parlance of tea party leaders, now includes allowing businesses to discriminate against minorities. Lower taxes, meanwhile, only means lower taxes for upper middle class and wealthy Americans. (When the allegedly anti-tax movement learned that 47 percent of Americans didn't pay federal income taxes in 2009 due to tax cuts, they were outraged.)
The Republican Party, for its part, continues to engage in Southern Strategy politics. This isn't a matter of opinion. It's empirical fact. The Republican Southern Strategy is real and it inextricably binds the party to the exploitation of anti-minority bigotry for political advantage. Arizona's anti-Hispanic law is the most recent example in a long history including the "Harold! Call me!" commercial, Lee Atwater, Jesse Helms, Pat Buchanan and the Nixon White House. Therefore the Republican Party has a considerably large racial -- even racist -- component that's in operation today. Right now. If it exploits white racial prejudices a wedge for political gain, how can there not be a bond between the two? How can it not be a component?
Likewise, it's become crystal clear throughout the past year or so, going as far back as Sarah Palin's "community organizer" dog whistle during the campaign, to the wide variety of racially insensitive protest signs and all the rest of it, that the tea party isn't just about smaller government and lower taxes. It's also about race. And with a candidate for Senate like Rand Paul straddling three racially unfriendly political worlds -- the GOP, the tea party and libertarianism -- hopefully this ugliness will be taken seriously now by mainstream Americans and help to discredit large chunks of the tea party movement.

Rand Paul On Civil Rights Controversy: I Shouldn't Have Talked To Rachel Maddow [UPDATED]

Rand Paul is a neo-nazi racist fascist pig, and the video's below from the Rachel Maddow show show him proving it in his own words. He doesn't believe the government has the right to mandate private business not discriminate, but that they should have the right to decide who can and can't not eat at their lunch counters, shop in their stores, swim in their pools, play tennis or gulf or work out at their clubs. He is pathetic and disgusting. This post includes the entire interview on Rachel Maddow from 19MAI10, the article from Huffington Post from 20MAI10 and the NPR All Things Considered interview with link to listen to it from 19MAI10.





See new updates below.

The morning after he declined to endorse the totality of the Civil Rights Act in his much-discussed appearance on the Rachel Maddow Show, Dr. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) copped to feeling regret -- not over his comments, but rather his decision to be interviewed by Maddow in the first place.

"It was a poor political decision and probably won't be happening anytime in the near future," the Tea Party endorsed Senate candidate said on the Laura Ingraham show on Thursday morning. "Because, yeah, they can play things and want to say, 'Oh you believed in beating up people that were trying to sit in restaurants in the 1960s.' And that is such a ridiculous notion and something that no rational person is in favor of. [But] she went on and on about that."

Blaming the messenger is a tactic often used by politicians when the message itself is to blame. And Paul's appearance on the Maddow show on Wednesday night was anything but bland. For 15 minutes, he and the host went back and forth in debating where there should be limits to government efforts to desegregate private institutions (Paul was skeptical that the government should play any role at all). But the notion that the MSNBC host was somehow unloading liberal hostilities on him doesn't jibe with the fact that Paul got the same type of treatment during an NPR interview earlier that morning -- or, for that matter, that a conservative voice on MSNBC, Joe Scarborough, seemed aghast at his answers. "He needs to come up with an answer today, or Kentucky will be Arizona: a battleground for ugly, racial politics," Scarborough said. "He has 24 hours."

(Paul, in fact, chose Maddow's show to initially launch his Senate candidacy a year prior to last night's appearance.)

Paul did seem to draw back (or tighten) his discussion of the Civil Rights Act during his interview with Ingraham.

"These are settled issues in the Civil Rights Act," he said. "I have no intention of bringing up anything related to the Civil Rights Act... I think [segregation] is sort of a stain and blight on our history -- so, no, I have never really favored any change in the Civil Rights Act or any of that. But they have seemed to unleash the loony left on me."
Story continues below

UPDATE I: Rand Paul's campaign has now issued a lengthy statement about his views on the Civil Rights Act. The key quote: "I unequivocally state that I will not support any efforts to repeal the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

"I believe we should work to end all racism in American society and staunchly defend the inherent rights of every person. I have clearly stated in prior interviews that I abhor racial discrimination and would have worked to end segregation. Even though this matter was settled when I was 2, and no serious people are seeking to revisit it except to score cheap political points, I unequivocally state that I will not support any efforts to repeal the Civil Rights Act of 1964."


"Let me be clear: I support the Civil Rights Act because I overwhelmingly agree with the intent of the legislation, which was to stop discrimination in the public sphere and halt the abhorrent practice of segregation and Jim Crow laws."

"As I have said in previous statements, sections of the Civil Rights Act were debated on Constitutional grounds when the legislation was passed. Those issues have been settled by federal courts in the intervening years."

"My opponent's statement on MSNBC Wednesday that I favor repeal of the Civil Rights Act was irresponsible and knowingly false. I hope he will correct the record and retract his claims."

"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."

"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."

"These attacks prove one thing for certain: the liberal establishment is desperate to keep leaders like me out of office, and we are sure to hear more wild, dishonest smears during this campaign."

UPDATE II: TPM highlights another potentially problematic view of Paul's that came up during the same NPR interview during which Paul discussed the Civil Rights Act.

Rand Paul's interview with NPR's All Things Considered last night was the first sign the the freshly-minted Kentucky Republican Senate nominee might have some explaining to do today. The blogosphere is already alight with Paul's interview with Rachel Maddow, but his interview on NPR shows that his libertarian views go deeper than just his take on the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Speaking with NPR's Robert Siegel, Paul made the case for less federal involvement in workplace and environmental regulation, including his opposition to some components of the Americans With Disabilities Act. [...]


Here's the interview in a nutshell, from Paul's response to a question about whether or not he thinks the ADA is an example of federal "overreach":

"I think a lot of things could be handled locally," Paul told Siegel. "For example, I think that we should try to do everything we can to allow for people with disabilities and handicaps...I think if you have a two-story office and you hire someone who's handicapped, it might be reasonable to let him have an office on the first floor rather than the government saying you have to have a $100,000 elevator. And I think when you get to solutions like that, the more local the better, and the more common sense the decisions are, rather than having a federal government make those decisions."




Rand Paul Says He Has A Tea Party 'Mandate'
May 19, 2010

Rand Paul, the winner in Tuesday night's Senate primary race in Kentucky, tells Robert Siegel that he has a Tea Party mandate -- a mandate that calls for good government, term limits, and a balanced budget amendment, among other things. He talks about his belief that more issues should be dealt with on a local level rather than on a federal level.

Copyright © 2010 National Public Radio®. For personal, noncommercial use only. See Terms of Use. For other uses, prior permission required.

ROBERT SIEGEL, host:

One of the Republican winners last night, Rand Paul of Kentucky, can credit his success in part to a third-party movement, the Tea Party.

Dr. RAND PAUL (Republican Senatorial Candidate, Kentucky): I have a message, a message from the Tea Party, a message that is loud and clear and does not mince words. We've come to take our government back.

(Soundbite of cheering)

SIEGEL: That was Rand Paul last night. And he joins us now. Welcome to the program.

Dr. PAUL: Glad to be with you.

SIEGEL: You've run largely on an anti-Washington platform. You spoke of the Tea Party. How faithful a member of the Republican Party do you expect to be if you're elected to the Senate in November?

Dr. PAUL: Well, it's kind of interesting. You know, I went to my first national convention in 1976, when my family supported Reagan over Ford, so we've always been Republicans, but we've always wanted the Republican Party to be the party of fiscally conservative, limited-government types. And I think, sometimes, we haven't done that as well. You know, when Republicans were in charge, we doubled the debt. But, now, our concern is the Democrats are in charge and they're tripling the debt. So, really, our concern is that we want smaller government. We want to avoid some kind of debt crisis, like what's happening in Greece currently.

SIEGEL: You've said that business should have the right to refuse service to anyone, and that the Americans with Disabilities Act, the ADA, was an overreach by the federal government. Would you say the same by extension of the 1964 Civil Rights Act?

Dr. PAUL: What I've always said is that I'm opposed to institutional racism, and I would've, had I've been alive at the time, I think, had the courage to march with Martin Luther King to overturn institutional racism, and I see no place in our society for institutional racism.

SIEGEL: But are you saying that had you been around at the time, you would have - hoped that you would have marched with Martin Luther King but voted with Barry Goldwater against the 1964 Civil Rights Act?

Dr. PAUL: Well, actually, I think it's confusing on a lot of cases with what actually was in the civil rights case because, see, a lot of the things that actually were in the bill, I'm in favor of. I'm in favor of everything with regards to ending institutional racism. So I think there's a lot to be desired in the civil rights. And to tell you the truth, I haven't really read all through it because it was passed 40 years ago and hadn't been a real pressing issue in the campaign, on whether we're going for the Civil Rights Act.

SIEGEL: But it's been one of the major developments in American history in the course of your life. I mean, do you think the '64 Civil Rights Act or the ADA for that matter were just overreaches and that business shouldn't be bothered by people with the basis in law to sue them for redress?

Dr. PAUL: Right. I think a lot of things could be handled locally. For example, I think that we should try to do everything we can to allow for people with disabilities and handicaps. You know, we do it in our office with wheelchair ramps and things like that. I think if you have a two-story office and you hire someone who's handicapped, it might be reasonable to let him have an office on the first floor rather than the government saying you have to have a $100,000 elevator. And I think when you get to the solutions like that, the more local the better, and the more common sense the decisions are, rather than having a federal government make those decisions.

SIEGEL: How do you feel about the degree of federal involvement in oversight of the mining and oil drilling industries?

Dr. PAUL: I think that most manufacturing and mining should be under the purview of state authorities. It's kind of interesting that, you know, when the EPA was originally instituted, it wasn't even passed by Congress. It was passed as an executive order by Nixon. And I think there is some overreach in the sense that the EPA now says: You know what, if Congress doesn't pass greenhouse emissions regulations or testing, we'll simply do it on our own. I think that's an arrogance of a regulatory body ran amok.

SIEGEL: Well, Rand Paul, just looking ahead to the campaign, now as you look forward to November, what, in a nutshell, do you assume your election campaign is going to be about as you run for the Senate from Kentucky?

Dr. PAUL: Well, I think we have a Tea Party mandate, and that Tea Party mandate is for good-government type of things, things like term limits, things like a balanced budget amendment, things like read the bills for goodness sakes, things like that maybe Congress should only pass legislation that they apply to themselves as well. Also, that each piece of legislation they pass should point to where in the Constitution they get the authority for it.

I think you'll find that these are measures that have great bipartisan support, and so I expect, not only did we do well in the primary, I think we'll win by a wide margin in the fall because we're going to get a lot of independents and conservative Democrats coming to us.

SIEGEL: Well, Rand Paul, thank you very much for talking with us today.

Dr. PAUL: Thank you.

SIEGEL: Rand Paul, who won yesterday's Republican primary in the state of Kentucky. He'll be the candidate to succeed retiring Republican Senator Jim Bunning.