Racist Government Imposed Segregation Laws, Not 2-Year-Old Rand Paul
"Renaissance Thinking About the Issues of Our Day"
This is why we are responsible for our history and not just our own acts. The issue is the crappy idea that government has no right to regulate commerce. It makes acting out on prejudice protected behavior, and leaves it up to social shunning instead of the law.
If he were a true social libertarian and not a stalking horse for corporate rip and rape, we could have productive policy alignments. If he were just another "small government" Republican, we might find some useful linkages on spending. But as an ideological proponent of public policies that have a terrible track record, he has to answer for it.
Palin thinks that Paul made his support for the Civil Rights Act clear. He has also made clear his hands off approach to GP and to all "private" commerce. Get this clear, "commerce" is a public activity we let private owners engage in. If you want to form a club, have a membership list or even call it a church, you can do all the 'discriminatin' you wish. If you want to put the stars and bars on your windows, black people and real Americans know what to expect.
Because there really is no racism working in America today, what happened before Rand must not matter. Really. The guy is a lightweight and his Dad is only popular for opposing the war. Randi is reading a bunch of his 'newsletters,' and boy do they go into the cracker-barrel with sheets and hoods flying.
But 47 year old Rand wants to return America to a more racist country. Whether he's a racist or not, I do not presume to know what's in his heart. But when he talks about private business having the civil liberty to practice discrmination AND wanting to transfer as many government services to the private sector, then LEGAL discrmination in fact becomes more rampant. What with the libertarian goal to privatize education, it then becomes institutionalized. And how would 47 year old Rand vote on ENDA? This is still a Civil Rights issue, and Rand made his position clear on the supremacy of private business. So obviously he would defend business' right to fire employees or deny employment to those applicants simply for their sexual orientation. As a matter of fact, his and the libertarian position on marriage equality isn't that he thinks gays should have equal rights (libertarians don't believe in civil rights, they couch it in terms of civil liberties), but that the government shouldn't have the authority to license relationships at all. He and the rest of the libertarians are just "Bizarro Marxists"!