Rand Paul and his "extreme" views on race

According to Stephanie Condon at CBS news, Rand Paul, a Tea-Party supported libertarian who won the GOP Senate nomination for Kentucky,  has some pretty extreme views about race.

She quotes Rand Paul as saying this in an NPR interview:

"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," Paul said.

But to Condon it gets worse. She writes "However, he added":

"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."

So supporting local initiatives as opposed to Federal mandates is now an extreme view. I guess in the liberal mindset, it is.

It gets better. I couldn't make this stuff up:

Paul's views on the issue first came under scrutiny last month during an interview with the Louisville Courier-Journal.

"I like the Civil Rights Act in the sense that it ended discrimination in all public domains, and I'm all in favor of that," he said. "I don't like the idea of teling [sic] private business owners -- I abhor racism... I do believe in private ownership."

The Courier-Journal in an editorial said that Paul's remarks were "repulsive" and declared that it could not endorse either Republican in the Senate primary.

Paul's primary opponent, Kentucky Secretary of State Trey Grayson, attacked Paul's extreme views during the primary campaign, though that clearly did not deter enough voters from supporting Paul. Now that Paul is in a broader campaign, his Democratic opponent, Kentucky Attorney General Jack Conway, is using the same strategy.

"These are not the views of mainstream Kentuckians," Conway said about Paul's beliefs in an interview with Talking Points Memo.

This is all well and fine, I guess, because she is quoting others, except for the reference to extreme, which is her own opinion inserted into a news story. She used the same term in her lead, which makes it hard to view this as an objective story. She should have stated that Paul's opponent used the term.

Now that the Tea Party-backed Rand Paul has the GOP nomination for Kentucky's open Senate seat, the media and his Democratic opponent are pouncing on his extreme libertarian views -- particularly with respect to his position on racism in private businesses and whether he would have supported the 1964 Civil Rights Act. [emphasis mine] 

This would have you believe that Paul would not have supported the Civil Rights Act and would not be against racist practices in private businesses, and while not true, Paul has a little trouble articulating his philosophy.

I could understand some neophyte reporter writing a weak report, but to have it clear her editors is beyond me. And for the Louisville Courier-Journal to label Paul's comments as "repulsive" is repulsive to me, but at least they did it in an editorial. But it seems nowadays if you disagree with the "establishment liberal religion" you are racist somehow. Not sure I understand this, but I get tired of hearing it. 
 
So, someone tell me how this CBS news article is an unbiased report. From my point of view, this is so biased that it makes the people over at Fox news look like amateurs.

For another look at Paul and racism in a more balanced way, see this article at Outside the Beltway.

Note: Condon's story has received several updates since I wrote this, but she has not changed her lead or the tone of the story.

As of 3:30 pm CDT, there were about 220 comments posted on this story. Obviously, CBS visitors are mostly liberals. It's hard to read such hate-filled, vile attacks they make on their political opponents. These people don't debate the issues, they just make personal attacks. After the second reference to Nazism, I quite reading...

Burn this racist city down!

The message to "burn this racist city down" was reportedly spray-painted on a Phoenix sidewalk. Protesters in Phoenix are arrested for throwing rocks and bricks at police and 12 are arrested in Chicago for blocking a street.

Real nice. And it's the Tea Parties that have the left and the MSM worried about violence. No Tea Party demonstration or protest matched what is going on in Arizona and elsewhere.

But we should be more understanding, because it really does seem that the left in this country truly gets deranged over this subject of illegal aliens streaming across our borders. As opposed to "undocumented workers." So much nicer, makes you feel good all over, a tingly feeling running up your leg (right, Chris Matthews?)

Leo Banks, who covers the border for Tuscon Weekly, offers some context in an article for American Thinker:

This isn't your father's illegal immigration, when polite farm workers offered to do chores in return for some water and a sandwich as they walked north. Today, the drug cartels have taken over the people-smuggling business. They own the trails into the country and dominate the land, the same way urban gangs control neighborhoods...

Along the Chiricahua Corridor smuggling route north and east of Douglas, Arizona, residents have been screaming for some time about break-ins, threats, intimidation, vandalism, and home invasions. But the feds did nothing to keep citizens safe. Instead, they talked amnesty.

Then, a highly respected rancher in Arizona is gunned down by a suspected drug smuggler, still at large, presumably in Mexico. The State of Arizona reacts by saying they are going to enforce federal law.

Now, the Hispanic News in Tuscon says:

Arizona SB 1070, which will become Arizona law 90 days after the state legislature’s present session comes to an end, will bring havoc on Arizona directly turning Arizona into a Gestapo state violating the civil rights of Arizona Hispanics by significantly increasing police profiling of everyone with a brown face.

Gestapo? This shows no understanding of what really happened in Germany in the 1930s. Stopping illegal immigration (of all races, not just Hispanic) and its corresponding horrendous crime rates, is the motivation. The Nazis had different motivations.

Crime in Arizona is out of control. Phoenix is the number two kidnapping capitol of the world, behind number one Mexico City.

But keep crying racism. It won't do any good. If the federal government would get off its ass and do it's job, this would not be an issue.

And we have the President of Mexico weighing in as well. He should be ashamed, but he has economic motivations. The measure, which will make it a crime under state law to be an illegal immigrant, “opens the door to intolerance, hate, discrimination and abuse in law enforcement,” Calderon said.

So what would happen if an American citizen was in Mexico illegally? Foreigners who fail to obey the rules will be fined, deported, and/or imprisoned as felons:

• Foreigners who fail to obey a deportation order are to be punished. (Article 117)
• Foreigners who are deported from Mexico and attempt to re-enter the country without authorization can be imprisoned for up to 10 years. (Article 118)
• Foreigners who violate the terms of their visa may be sentenced to up to six years in prison (Articles 119, 120 and 121). Foreigners who misrepresent the terms of their visa while in Mexico — such as working with out a permit — can also be imprisoned.

Under Mexican law, illegal immigration is a felony. The General Law on Population says,

• A penalty of up to two years in prison and a fine of three hundred to five thousand pesos will be imposed on the foreigner who enters the country illegally.” (Article 123)
• Foreigners with legal immigration problems may be deported from Mexico instead of being imprisoned. (Article 125)
• Foreigners who “attempt against national sovereignty or security” will be deported. (Article 126)

Mexicans who help illegal aliens enter the country are themselves considered criminals under the law:

• A Mexican who marries a foreigner with the sole objective of helping the foreigner live in the country is subject to up to five years in prison. (Article 127)
• Shipping and airline companies that bring undocumented foreigners into Mexico will be fined. (Article 132)

Ah, so if the shoe fits, you'd better wear it, huh El Jeffe?

Hat tip to Cassio Fiano for some of this material.

Are you conservative? Or liberal?

If a conservative does not like guns, he (or she) does not buy one.
If a liberal does not like guns, then no one should have one.

If a conservative is a vegetarian, he does not eat meat.
If a liberal is a vegetarian, he wants to ban all meat products for everyone.

If a conservative sees a threat, he plans on how to defend himself.
A liberal wonders how to accommodate the threat by negotiating.

If a conservative is a homosexual, he quietly enjoys his life.
If a liberal is a homosexual, he loudly demands legislated respect.

If a Black or Hispanic is conservative, he sees himself as independently successful.
Their liberal counterparts see themselves as victims in need of of government handouts.

If a conservative is down-and-out, he thinks about how to better his situation.
A liberal wonders who is going to take care of him.

If a conservative does not like a talk show, he switches stations.
Liberals demand that those they do not like be shut down.

If a conservative is a non-believer, he does not go to church.
A liberal wants any mention of God or religion silenced.

If a conservative decides he needs health care insurance, he goes about shopping for it, or may choose a job that provides it.
A liberal demands that the government provide his.

Sunday Commentary

According to the Washington Post, 80 percent of black voters in South Carolina voted for Barack Obama. So why do blacks generally support the Democrat Party? Is it just a question of race? These are questions that perplexe Larry Elder in his recent article, "How Can a ‘Fellow Black American’ Oppose Obama?" I highly recommend anyone not familiar with Larry's writings to give this one a read. He provides a short history of the two parties.

Bob Novak, in an editorial for the Washington Post this week, said Colin Powell will probably support Barack Obama. Arianna Huffington has a field day with this in her Sunday Roundup. I'm thinking of cancelling my Netflix subscription because they are a regular supporter of her site with popup ads. In reading some of the reader comments to her post, it seems liberals hate conservatives more than terrorists.

If you haven't checked out the web site "Reglion of Peace," I suggest you do. According to their research, Islamic terrorists have carried out nearly 12,000 attacks since 9/11.

The Washington Post reports that "a win for his Republican counterpart, John McCain, could mean a fundamental shift to a consistently conservative majority ready to take on past court rulings on abortion rights, affirmative action and other issues important to the right." As if that's a bad thing?

The war in Iraq is illegal and Bush lied (or at least mislead us into war) is still a popular talking point for the left. Norman Podhertz said that "what makes this charge so special is the amazing success it has enjoyed in getting itself established as a self-evident truth even though it has been refuted and discredited over and over again by evidence and argument alike." Read his editorial in the Wall Street Journal for the facts. Then visit The Atlantic and read Kenneth Pollard's article. Now, you'll be better armed to debate liberals (though they don't pay much attention to facts; they just get in the way).