- Rob Redding: "Black Leaders Hit Rand Paul About Comments"
- Jim Clyburn Appalled At Rand Paul's Comments
- Politico: Rand Paul Clarifies His Comments
From the Field-Negro Blog where poster "Maria" pointed to the exchange with Rachael Maddow:
and then those blacks who post here and else where and anyone else who believes in civil rights that thinks they also support the tea party try to defend that now.
Note - I have a ban on syndicating Huffington Post material except when it is part of the story. (You can find 101 other Black Progressive-Fundamentalists that operate as syndicates instead)
Huffington Post: Rand Paul On 'Maddow' Defends Criticism Of Civil Rights Act, Says He Would Have Worked To Change Bill (VIDEO)
Maddow: Do you think that a private business has a right to say that 'We don't serve black people?'
Paul: I'm not in favor of any discrimination of any form. I would never belong to any club that excluded anybody for race. We still do have private clubs in America that can discriminate based on race. Butdo discriminate.
But I think what's important in this debate is not getting into any specific "gotcha" on this, but asking the question 'What about freedom of speech?' Should we limit speech from people we find abhorrent. Should we limit racists from speaking. I don't want to be associated with those people, but I also don't want to limit their speech in any way in the sense that we tolerate boorish and uncivilized behavior because that's one of the things that freedom requires is that
we allow people to be boorish and uncivilized, but that doesn't mean we approve of it...
Maddow:... Howabout desegregating lunch counters?
Paul: Well what it gets into then is if you decide that restaurants are publicly owned and not privately owned, then do you say that you should have the right to bring your gun into a restaurant even though the owner of the restaurant says 'well no, we don't want to have guns in here' the bar says 'we don't want to have guns in here because people might drink and start fighting and shoot each-other.' Does the owner of the restaurant own his restaurant? Or does the government own his restaurant? These are important philosophical debates but not a very practical discussion...
Maddow: Well, it was pretty practical to the people who had the life nearly beaten out of them trying to desegregate Walgreen's lunch counters despite these esoteric debates about what it means about ownership. This is not a hypothetical Dr. Paul.
MY RESPONSE TO MARIA from the Filled Negro Blog:
Using the TEXT THAT IS CONTAINED IN THE ARTICLE as the ONLY BASIS FOR OUR DISCUSSION.......can you tell me what is racist/radical/offensive about what Rand Paul said?
It seems to me that you are one of those people who believe that no one can say anything critical of "Martin Luther King Jr, the INTENTIONS of the NAACP or make observations that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 had some flaws - like most other legislation has".
Again - in the first exchange Maddow tried to produce a "Gotcha", Paul articulated his opposition to discrimination and made note of the rights of a PRIVATE CLUB as the issue.
In the second exchange she again tried to get him on the issue of racism by bringing up the lunch counters. They are having TWO DIFFERENT CONVERSATIONS. He is talking about the GOVERNMENT IMPOSING ITS WILL UPON PRIVATE OWNERS - she needed to find RACISM as the TRUMP CARD to afford the government the right to do as it pleases in the name of "civil rights".
You see Maria - As I watch how Progressive-Fundamentalists work - you all live upon the INDICTMENT.
Now let us fast forward to TO-DAMNED-DAY. In a lily White suburb of Atlanta a new sports bar opened up 2 months ago. It had 15 flat screen televisions STOLEN off of the wall the other night. The Street Pirates were BLACK. I assure you that the Civil Rights Actor-vists around Atlanta will be silent on this as with so many other assaults.
UNTIL, that is, the Sandy Springs police department DARES to stop a carload of Black males who they believe are 'casing restaurants', appearing to plot out their next target.
How does it feel to be apparently so strong in making indictments yet expecting that PROPERTY OWNERS just grin and bear when on a daily basis (at least around hear) there is some SMASH AND GRAB assault on businesses but WE ARE ALL SUPPOSED TO PRETEND that the PROFILE that was captured on the VIDEO TAPES that are shown on the news did not signify the RACE of the Street Pirates?
I would love to see you own a Lunch Counter with 6 flat screen televisions Maria.
The reason why most White politicians stay away from criticizing any aspects of the "Civil Rights Act", "Voting Rights Act" and many other "racial legislation" is because these pieces of legislation - unlike 99% of all the others are OFF LIMITS. If you don't accept them hook, line and sinker - you are a racist.
Now of course if you are a "Black Radical" who dares ask the question "What happened to the foundation of Black owned businesses in America after we accepted the trick called 'Integration'" then you are allowed to make such hypotheticals.
The very same people who applauded yesterday's Supreme Court ruling regarding the illegality of life sentences without parole for minors who did not commit murder are of the same group that would have the Southern states permanently under sanction by the Preclearance Provision of the Voting Rights Act regardless of if they have committed any offenses for years or not. Their goal is to create voting districts by which "Progressives who are Black" can be elected into the US House. The present condition of these districts and the trend of "Black Flight Progressive" departure from them is of tertiary importance. Second is the "Portrait that hangs on the wall" which garners pride.
In the big game of gotcha and "feigned outrage" we are to buy into Rachael Maddow's lead yet ignore the big threats to the Black community that she and other Black Progressive-Fundamentalists don't talk about because it is not their forte and they risk self-indictment.
"Private Property Rights" only matter when "the powerful" seek to take "Black land" and use it for a larger development, THE GOVERNMENT reaching in to take it away.
I contend that many people are able to reside on their moral high ground and render indictments for no other reason than the fact that they have never been in a position to have government impose upon them.
Rand Paul brought this on himself. He has never been elected before and it showed in this conversation.
At the same time these theoretical exercises about the PAST never seem to get applied to the present, those who render indictments getting put on trial for the present state of affairs under their watch.
IF my crime is that I am "defending Rand Paul" (and I am not. I think he should have saw what he was stepping into and THOUGHT a little more clearly) then the "high crime and misdemeanor" that should be rendered upon those who feign outrage should be for them to be made to look at the millions of young Black people who were born when:
- The lunch counters were open to them
- The schools were open to anyone who met the residency requirements
- The jobs went to those who could show value to the "consumer of labor"
In summary as the Black "rank and file" continue to eat the "chum" that is thrown out for us to distract our attention then we will be made content to follow those who are "fighting to keep Slavery and Jim Crow from returning".
However, we will never get around to carefully studying the organic competencies WITHIN our communities that have been developed while they ran our institutions. This is ultimately a matter of VALUATION and PRIORITIZATION. Failing that you will be continuously CHASING.
Rand Paul has NEVER created a failing Black public school.
How long are you all going to continue to bite the hook?
You seem to know who your external enemies are. Are there any internal ones that you are missing?