NORTON META TAG

Showing posts with label rand paul. Show all posts
Showing posts with label rand paul. Show all posts

27 October 2010

When in Doubt, They Beat Up Women 27OKT10

ONE time, a few years ago, a co-worker, who was actually a supervisor at the company I was working for, told me that some day, when people like him took power in this country they would be coming for people like me. I laughed in his face and told him he and his kind didn't scare me and I was not about to give up my political views and activities because he didn't like them. He moved to Texas years ago, am sure he has found a lot of pathetic, narrow minded people just like him to hang with there, and I can see him as a tea-bagger, spreading hate, lies, deception and right-wing propaganda, and probably coming very close to violence against people who oppose his political views. He is just the kind of person who is simple enough that the loud mouth right-wing fanatics like sarah palin, michele bachmann, glenn beck and all those other haters at fox "news", with all their rhetoric, could be pushed to acts of violence against anyone they label an threat to the corporate plutocracy they are trying to turn our Republic into. They encourage anger, hate and violence and then when it happens deny they had anything to do with it and aren't responsible. Students of history will remember how cowardly hitler was when he was starting his nazi party.....he would get his brown shirts and other supporters all fired up and then turn them loose on the opposition...but when they started to loose the street battles hitler would vanish, leaving his dead and wounded on the street, his supporters to be arrested. That is the poisonous atmosphere seeping into this election now, and my fear is it will only get worse....THIS IS A GREAT ARTICLE FROM HUFFPOST DOCUMENTING THE VIOLATIONS OF CIVIL AND HUMAN RIGHTS, VIOLENCE BY TEA-BAGGERS AND THEIR GOP SUPPORTERS AND POLICE BRUTALITY, ALL AT CAMPAIGN EVENTS. GOD HELP US ALL GET THROUGH THIS WITHOUT ANONE GETTING KILLED!
Anyone who's ever spent extended time with very young children will know what I'm talking about here. Whenever a particularly spazzy kid who's perhaps a little too hepped up on sugary snacks can't articulate what he or she wants, they tend to act out. Sometimes violently. Spitting, biting, screeching, hitting.
I think you know where I'm going with this.
Despite the fact that they're probably going to win a considerable number of congressional seats on Tuesday, the far right appears to be unsatisfied with a significant electoral victory and is supplementing its would-be success by physically accosting anyone who isn't sporting an array of teabags erotically dangled from the brim of a tri-cornered hat.
Last week, hired goons working for Sarah Palin's hand-selected action figure candidate Joe Miller (With Life-Like Hair and Beard!) manhandled, handcuffed and detained a reporter. No serious violence committed here, except perhaps a precursor to violence against the First Amendment should Joe Miller actually win. It's always a good sign when a potential U.S. Senator retains hired goons in order to arrest members of the press. But, then again, Miller thinks communist East Germany was simply the tops, so it seems to be all part of a larger set piece for him.

Of course, this was only a precursor to a supremely violent week in wingnuttia.
Outside the debate between Rand Paul and Paul Conway, a MoveOn.org activist, Lauren Valle, was attacked, shoved to the ground and stomped on. Rand Paul supporters, along with an actual Rand Paul campaign staffer, displayed their insecure masculinity and newly "restored honor" by beating up a woman in plain view of cameras and other citizens who appeared to do nothing to stop the assailants. By the way, no one's talking about the other redneck in the green hat and plaid shirt who wrestled Valle to the ground, or the black-tee-shirted person who appears to step on Valle's mid-section. We can only assume they won't turn themselves in despite the Tea Party's widely publicized commitment to personal responsibility.

Further highlighting Tea Party honor and personal responsibility today, the chief woman-fighter at the scene, Tim Profitt, demanded that Valle apologize to him. I can only assume Profitt is suffering from the post-traumatic stress that resulted from Valle's head thwacking him on the sole of his defenseless shoe. Poor baby. (Appropriately posted on Twitter today: "BP to seek apology from Gulf of Mexico.")
Meanwhile, scores of far-right AM radio talkers, far-right bloggers and far-right blog commenters swung into action in a unified effort to blame the victim on this attack.
Erectile-dysfunction sufferer Rush Limbaugh, for example, implied that the attack was justified given the fact that Tea Party crazies are refusing to "grab the ankles" and "play nice." So if I'm correctly following Limbaugh's reasoning, one way to avoid (metaphorical?) anal rape is to wrestle a woman to the curb, American History X style, and step on her face. Nice. No wonder he's been married four times. He obviously has tremendous respect for women.
And yesterday in Virginia, a member of a rural Democratic committee, John Taylor, was ejected from an open-to-the-public Eric Cantor event in Louisa County. Reports indicate Taylor did absolutely nothing to precipitate his ejection from the coffee shop where the event was being held. After leaving, Taylor was violently accosted by police on the sidewalk in a ridiculously over-the-top display of excessive use of force.






This is evidently how the Republicans intend to handle dissent should they gain any sort of congressional majority. When they're not avoiding press scrutiny or party opposition, they're arresting dissenters. And when they're unable to rationally debate the issues, they lash out with violence.
It's a special brand of cowardice that's symptomatic of their utterly inexplicable and contradictory positions.
They insist the Democrats increased the deficit when, in fact, the Democrats and the Obama administration cut the deficit by $122 billion following the Bush-authorized 2009 budget. Allow me to repeat: President Obama cut the deficit by $122 billion. It's the largest one-year reduction in the federal budget deficit ever. Ever!
They're screeching about joblessness under the Obama administration even though the Democrats and the White House helped to create more private-sector jobs than the entire two terms of the Bush administration.
They've turned the stimulus into an obscenity even though it created at least 1.4 million new jobs.
They're pitching a fit about taxes while oblivious to the fact that, included in the stimulus, the Obama administration passed the largest middle class tax cut in American history.
And they're pissing in their big-boy pants over the bailouts, which were requested and signed by the Bush administration and have ultimately earned an eight-percent profit.
Hell, the word-salad chef herself -- the queen of the Tea Party -- Sarah Palin (along with her idiot sidekick Christine O'Donnell) still don't understand the purpose and intent of the First Amendment. Palin, for her part, believes the First Amendment allows Juan Williams to say whatever the hell he wants to say with impunity. Naturally, this is a doofish misinterpretation of the First Amendment, which was written to protect the people and the press from the government -- not to protect TV and radio personalities from their employers or from political activists.
Seriously, it has to be mind-bendingly frustrating to have to defend some of this nonsensical hooey. Couple all of it with the umbrella contradiction that the original Boston Tea Party was a protest against a tax cut in favor of the British East India Company, allowing the corporation to import tea to the colonies tax-free and therefore undercut the prices charged by independent importers. I always hesitate to mention this because I don't want to be held responsible for the subsequent far-right noggin meltdowns. Yes, the original Tea Party was in opposition to a corporate tax cut. Chew on that one, Tea Partiers.
So in the absence of rational and factual arguments, what are they left with? Inchoate violence and flailing rage directed at anyone who chooses to observe the problems of nation through the prism of objective reality and facts. We live in a counter-factual era no matter what arguments are made, and no matter how many sources we have on hand to make the case for reality, the far-right is more content to throw fists and fits. It just so happens that Stephen Colbert is right: "Reality has a well-known liberal bias."

Tim Profitt, Rand Paul Supporter, Admits To Confronting Woman At Debate 26OKT10

SO now we know the name of the cowardly tea-bagger who felt he had to prove to the world what a man he is by stomping on the head of a woman who was knocked down, who was on the ground. rand paul needs to condemn tim profitt and cut all association with him, banish him from his campaign and return all campaign funds (or better yet donate these funds to a womens shelter) associated with tim profitt. profitt's family should be ashamed, as should anyone who knows him. Kinda reminds one of the pictures of the brown shirts attacking opponents of the nazi party during the elections in Germany in the 1930's, doesn't it? That seems to be the mentality of these tea-baggers and their gop supporters, they are willing to risk election violence a la the Third World to get their way....and their political policies will push this country closer to Third World status if they win in November....
 
A volunteer with Rand Paul's Senate campaign has admitted to placing his shoe firmly on the face of a MoveOn.org volunteer outside a Senate debate on Monday night, but insisted that the camera angle of the footage that captured the altercation made the scuffle look worse than it was.
Tim Profitt apologized for the incident in a statement sent to a local AP reporter. But he also criticized the police for not stepping in to calm down the crowd and argued that other supporters had previously warned authorities about the MoveOn activist, Lauren Valle.
(See Valle's recounting of the event below)
Profitt is not, it appears, a random campaign volunteer. Almost immediately after admitting his role, a picture of him and Paul surfaced.

The local blog Barefoot and Progressive also noted that the Paul campaign once touted Profitt's endorsement in a newspaper ad.
A spokesman for the Lexington Police Department said on Tuesday afternoon that "Mr. Profitt is currently being served with a criminal summons ordering him to appear before a Fayette County District Court Judge."
Advertisement
UPDATE: On Tuesday, Lauren Valle spoke for the first time since being thrust into the center of an alarming campaign fracas. Valle said that she recognized the Paul supporters who went after her and felt frightened almost immediately after they claimed they were there to do "crowd control." Her treatment, she said, was "premeditated."
I have been at a bunch of events before, the previous debate, and the Rand Paul campaign knows me and they have expressed their distastes for my work before. What happened last night was that about five minutes before Rand Paul's car arrived they identified me and my partner, Alex, who was with me. They surrounded me. There was five of them. They motioned to each other and got behind me. My partner Alex heard them say 'We are here to do crowd control we might have to take someone out.'
When Rand Paul's car arrived a couple of them stepped in front of me so I stepped off the curb to get around them to get back out front. At that point they started grabbing for me and I ran all the way around the car with them in pursuit. The footage is after I've run all the way around the car and I'm in front of the car and that is when they took me down. One or two people twisted my arms behind my back and took me down... It was about two-to-three second after that that another person stomped on my head. And I lay there for 20 seconds or so and my partner Alex came and got me up and that's the point where there is the media clip of me speaking.
Valle, who is going on MSNBC's Countdown With Keith Olbermann Tuesday night to discuss the event, said that the closest she got to Paul was "about five feet away" and that was only because she was running from the crowd.
As for the notion that she was kicked on the neck, not the head, she replied: "My memory of them is sort of that of a traumatized person. I think it was my head. My head is in a lot of pain today, my neck is kind of kinked. But I distinctly remember a blow to my head."
Addressing the next steps that she will take legally, she offered the following: "I was questioned by the police for about an hour and then afterwards I did file an assault complaint... I think it's public, one of the people has been identified and he ... works for the campaign and there will be further legal action taken. I'm not sure what it is called, but the detectives are moving forward with the case."

Get HuffPost Politics On Twitter, Facebook, and Google Buzz! Subscribe to the new HuffPost Hill newsletter!
A volunteer with Rand Paul's Senate campaign has admitted to placing his shoe firmly on the face of a MoveOn.org volunteer outside a Senate debate on Monday night, but insisted that the camera angle o...
A volunteer with Rand Paul's Senate campaign has admitted to placing his shoe firmly on the face of a MoveOn.org volunteer outside a Senate debate on Monday night, but insisted that the camera angle o...
Related News On Huffington Post:
 

Rand Paul Supporter Stomps On MoveOn Member's Head (VIDEO) (UPDATED) 25 & 27 OKT10

THIS is just the kind of vigilante activism we can expect from the tea-baggers and their supporters, and while rand paul may condemn this, his rhetoric, as well as that of glenn beck and most of the talking heads on fox "news" encourages it. Sadly, we are not far from the possibility of election violence a la Third World countries......but hey, that is where the gop / tea-bagger agenda is going to take this country anyway.....
 
Scroll down for video of the incident
An ugly scene took place outside the Kentucky Senatorial debate Monday night as what appeared to be a supporter of Republican candidate Rand Paul was captured by a local news affiliate literally stomping the head of a member of the progressive-activist organization MoveOn.org.
The MoveOn volunteer, Lauren Valle, went to the hospital after explaining what had happened to local press. As of 11:30 p.m. Eastern Standard Time she remained there, according to another MoveOn official. According to a local Fox station, Valle had attempted to approach Paul before the debate took place, dressed in a blonde wig and with a "RepublicanCorp" sign mocking him as a stooge of special interests.
Attendees around Valle are heard screaming, "get the cops" as cameras captured her being dragged to the pavement by her red sweater. Once on the ground a man wearing white sneakers pushed the sole of his shoe down on her head.
There is no definitive word on who stomped on Valle or why they went to such lengths to stop her protest. A call to the Lexington police department was not immediately returned. The Kentucky Post, however, reported that: "Police say she refused treatment and later filed an assault report. Her identity is not yet released."
The paper also reported that a second fight broke out before the debate, with a Conway supporter stepping on the foot of a female Paul supporter. The Paul supporter, who recently had foot surgery, refused medical treatment but filed an assault report.
UPDATE: A spokesman for the Lexington Police Department, Lt. Edward Hart, tells The Huffington Post that as off 12:30 a.m. Eastern Standard Time they have not yet identified the man captured on video stomping the head of the MoveOn volunteer. Hart said that the department would be reviewing news footage of the incident and that they "are hoping someone can identify who the person is." Until then, he said, it is a "pending investigation."
Advertisement
Hart additionally offered some details from the police report filed from the incident. There were, he said, roughly 300 protestors outside the debate and only a handful of officers. "We were not anticipating any issues," he acknowledged.
"The victim, apparently, was trying to run up and approach Dr. Paul with a sign reading 'RepubliCorp: Employee of the Month,'" he added. "She worked for MoveOn.org -- was a contract employee sent to the debate with MoveOn.org for the purpose of getting a picture with Dr. Paul with the sign."
Valle had been sent from Pennsylvania for the purposes of appearing outside the Paul event, according to Hart. "She had been attending multiple rallies with the same purpose. She stated that she was wearing a wig and as she was running up to Rand Paul she was either tripped on purpose or pushed to the ground." Following the incident Valle "complained of injury to the temple area."
Hart relayed that a fourth-degree assault report had been filed with the policy department -- as is customary when the result "is a minor injury." Once the suspect is identified it will be up to Valle "to file for warrant or the summons to bring that person into court."
LATER UPDATE: Mark Riddle, a senior adviser for the Conway campaign, tells The Huffington Post that Conway reached out to Valle after the incident took place to make sure she was all right. He did not get through to her at the hospital but was able to talk to a friend or associate who was there.
The Attorney General, Riddle relays, was inside the venue when the incident took place and didn't hear about it until after the fact. Police officials did, however, brief campaign officials in the green room during the course of the debate to alert them to what had transpired outside.
"Everyone is hoping she is okay and I don't think anybody believes this sort of behavior is tolerable," said Riddle. "We can disagree on issues and be passionate about them but I don't think there is any room for someone throwing a young lady to the ground and stomping her on the head no matter how much they disagree with her."
LATER UPDATE:: Paul aide Jesse Benton put out a statement after midnight calling the incident "incredibly unfortunate."
We understand that there was an altercation outside of the debate between supporters of both sides and that is incredibly unfortunate. Violence of any kind has no place in our civil discourse and we urge supporters on all sides to be civil to one another as tensions rise heading toward this very important election. We are relieved to hear that the woman in question was not injured.
LATER UPDATE:: A MoveOn official tells the Huffington Post that Valle suffered a concussion but was released from the hospital very early on Tuesday morning. She is leaning toward pressing charges, the official added.
In addition, Justin Ruben, Executive Director of MoveOn released the organization's first statement on the matter:
We're appalled at the violent incident that occurred at the Kentucky Senate debate last night. Numerous news reports clearly show that the young woman--a MoveOn supporter--was assaulted and pushed to the ground by Rand Paul supporters, where one man held her down while another stomped on her head. This kind of violence has no place in American society, much less at a peaceful political rally.
Our first concern is obviously Lauren's health and well being. She is recovering, and we will release more details as we have them. We are concerned that no arrests have yet been made, and we hope those responsible will be brought to justice quickly, and that Rand Paul will join us in condemning this horrible act.
LATER UPDATE:: Asked about the incident during an appearance on Fox News Tuesday morning, Paul acknowledged that there was "a bit of a crowd control problem."
We want everybody to be civil. We want this campaign to be about issues. I will tell you that when we arrived there was enormous passion on both sides. It really was something where you walk into a haze of lights flashing, people yelling and screaming, bumping up. And there was a bit of a crowd control problem. I don't want anybody though to be involved in things that aren't civil. I think this should always be about the issues. And it is an unusual situation to have so many people so passionate on both sides jockeying back and forth. And it wasn't something that I liked or anybody liked about that situation. So I hope in the future it is going to be better.
LATER UPDATE: Now Conway himself has weighed in with a statement sent from his campaign to reporters.
I was shocked to see video footage of a Rand Paul supporter stomping the head of a woman outside the debate last night. We can disagree on issues, and I don't know what preceded the incident, but physical violence by a man against a woman must never be tolerated. It is my hope that steps have been taken to ensure this kind of thuggish behavior never happens again in this campaign.

We will update this post with more information as it arrives.
Note: A photograph used on the front page of The Huffington Post depicting a "Don't Tread On Me" button worn by one of the men in the altercation was taken by Bob Layton at Blue Bluegrass.
WATCH:

28 May 2010

You Know What Else is Un-American, Rand Paul? 21MAI10

Newly minted Republican Senate candidate Rand Paul apparently thinks that criticizing BP for the Gulf spill is "really un-American." Because, you know, "sometimes accidents happen."
You know what's un-American? British Petroleum. You know what else is un-American? Operating your drilling rig in US waters under flag of the Marshall Islands so you can skirt Coast Guard oversight.

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/

21 May 2010

The Rand Paul Quote Everybody's Ignoring 21MAI10

Yes, he played cat-and-mouse with Rachel Maddow on the subject of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, but, as he rightly points out (pun intended), that's primarily a backward-looking debate. What's escaping public notice so far, though, is his take on a far more contemporary issue: accountability. Here's Rand Paul on the BP oil spill:
I think it's part of this sort of blame game society in the sense that it's always got to be someone's fault instead of the fact that sometimes accidents happen. (See the previous post to hear him state this on the ABC video).
The reason this quote isn't inflaming debate the way Paul's Libertarian dance around the Civil Rights Act has is simple: on this issue, Paul is not fringe-y or extremist or unusual; he's spouting a line we've heard incessantly, from defenders of BP, from apologists for the US Army Corps of Engineers (in the case of the flooding of New Orleans), from architects of the Iraq War. Paul is channeling Donald Rumsfeld: "Stuff happens." Nothing to see here, move on.
The deeper meaning of the quote is the standard Republican assault against lawyers who have the temerity to challenge, in court, established power. Just this week, the Louisiana legislature defeated a bill that would have punished the Tulane Legal Clinic for its work taking government agencies to court. The bill had the support of the Louisiana Chemical Association.
The political spin on Paul is that he's worrisome because he's not within the standard lines of the modern political debate. I'd suggest he's worrisome because he is.

Rand Paul: Obama Sounds 'Un-American' For Criticizing BP Over Gulf Oil Spill (VIDEO) 21MAI10

This guy continues to show America what a tea-bagging right wing neo-nazi fascist pig he is. Not only is he a racist (because though he "abhors" racism he will tolerate it in society, do nothing to stop it), he is also against increases in the minimum wage, and against the EPA and OSHA. His comments on Obama and BP show his true colors as being controlled by the greed of the wealthy. BY THE BY, AS A DOCTOR, 50% OF RAND PAUL'S PATIENTS ARE ON MEDICARE BUT HE ISN'T COMPLAINING ABOUT THAT GOVERNMENT AGENCY, THAT GOVERNMENT EXPENSE, IS HE?

In attempting to close the book on his controversial statements about the scope of the Civil Rights Act, Kentucky Senate candidate Rand Paul invited another round of intrigue and critique on an entirely unrelated front.
The Tea Party favorite, in an interview with ABC's "Good Morning America" on Friday morning, accused the Obama administration of being too tough on BP -- the oil company directly responsible for the massive spill in the Gulf.
"What I don't like from the president's administration is this sort of 'I'll put my boot heel on the throat of BP.' I think that sounds really un-American in his criticism of business," he said. "I've heard nothing from BP about not paying for the spill. And I think it's part of this sort of blame game society in the sense that it's always got to be someone's fault instead of the fact that sometimes accidents happen."



From a sheer political standpoint, defending an oil company that has caused a massive amount of economic and environmental damage along America's coast seems like a tricky proposition -- even for a candidate from a landlocked state. (Though at least two Kentucky residents have sued the oil company over the current spill).
Even BP itself wouldn't go as far as Paul, declining to comment on its relationship with the Obama administration except to say, through spokesperson Mark Salt, that it continues "to work with the government on every aspect of the response."
Substantively, Paul seems to be arguing that sharper regulatory oversight, or legislation that raises BP's liability cap, are both redundant. BP, after all, has pledged to make full payments. And as for future spills, well, "accidents happen."
It's an element of libertarianism that may be ideologically pure but probably doesn't prove all that comforting for those affected by the spill -- or the national Republican Party.
Story continues below
Paul hasn't taken much, if any, money from the oil and gas industry during his run for the Senate (under $8,000 total, according to Center for Responsive Politics). But it should be noted that BP does have major operations in his state.
"Our aluminium business is a non-integrated producer and marketer of rolled aluminium products, headquartered in Louisville, Kentucky, US. Production facilities are located in Logan County, Kentucky, and are jointly owned with Novelis," reads the company's 2009 annual report. "The primary activity of our aluminium business is the supply of aluminium coil to the beverage can business, which it manufactures primarily from recycled aluminium."

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.