The IUSB Vision Weblog

The way to crush the middle class is to grind them between the millstones of taxation and inflation. – Vladimir Lenin

Elite Media tries to portray Rand Paul as racist. Rand Paul, politics, the elite media and the Civil Rights Act.

Posted by iusbvision on May 26, 2010

It is the oldest trick on the far left playbook. They don’t want to have an argument, they can’t win any serious intellectual argument so therefore the definition of a racist is anyone who is winning an argument with a leftist.

Libertarians and other serious intellectuals often engage in thought exercises that we know full well will likely never play out in reality, but yet lessons are learned and debates are spawned through these thought exercises. A common thought exercise that comes up in politics, sociology, philosophy and economics classes are landmark pieces of legislation. They are explored and debated in classrooms all around the country almost very day.

Rand Paul once discussed the 1964 Civil Rights Act (which was filibustered by Democrats) in just such a manner. Rand Paul said that he stands fully with 9 out of the 10 provisions of the civil rights act which bars any government entity from denying someone a service or equal protection based on race. Paul did say that he has questions about the 10th provision that forces private businesses to do the same thing. After all who owns the business, you or the government? Some said that the government had the power to do this because of the commerce power, others said that it was a slipperty slope to the commerce power being used to bloat government and have it in too many aspects of our lives. Arguably both are correct. The tenth provision of the 1964 act is often chosen for just thought exercises precisely because it is one humdinger of a conundrum where both sides can be both right and wrong at the same time.

Surely anyone who denies service to a black man or a woman or even a white person based on that characteristic alone is a jerk who does not understand what America is all about, but also the politician who assumes that he can run peoples businesses for them such as these rules forcing no smoking in restaurants laws are  running over people’s property rights and their freedom of association guaranteed by the First Amendment. Such an act takes the entire idea of limited government and tosses it out the window it could be argued. Both sides are right and wrong all at the same time. This very thought excercise that I just reviewed has been played out likely millions of times in classrooms across the country and by no means does it mean you are a racist if you take one side or that you are a full-blown communist if you take the other side….. unless of course you are running for Senate in Kentucky and the elite media is out to destroy you.

The Civil Rights Act is established law, it is not up for review and it is not a part of anyone’s campaign message. This entire fuss is completely media created.

So now the elite media is all over Rand Paul saying that he made discrimination remarks (ABC) when you look at ABC’s web site the video just below is shown like this:

ABC smearing Rand Paul

Of course there were no “discrimination remarks” as Rand Paul has always opposed laws that codify race based preferences.

There are also plenty of times when a politician mostly supports a law but is concerned about a provision of it. The Patriot Act is a famous example. The Patriot Act Passed but even those who voted for it had some problems with the law. Those who did have those problems didn’t mean that they were pro terror. The far left of the Democratic Party tried to say that George Bush was looking at your library records  and other such nonsense, but it is interesting to note that those same Democrats who have come to power have removed the sunset provisions from the patriot act (thus it never expires and is now permanent) and the Obama Administration is arguing in court that you have no reasonable expectation of privacy when it comes to your email and some cell phone records. Where are those same people and the elite media now?…which just goes to show that so much of this is pure politics and about who has power to spend your money.

The 1964 Civil Rights Act had people who were supportive of it and had a problem with that 10th provision of it fearing that it would become a defacto quota bill.

If the Senator can find in Title VII … any language which provides that an employer will have to hire on the basis of percentage or quota related to color, race, religion, or national origin, I will start eating the pages one after another, because it is not in there – Hubert Humphrey on the floor of the U.S. Senate on April 9, 1964

But guess what, in spite of the fact that it had an amendment that specifically prohibited racial quotas Immediately after the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which was created by the Act, declared that “the failure of an employer to have the same percentage of blacks in his workforce as existed in the general population was prima facie proof of racial discrimination under the Act”. As a result of this regulatory fiat, the only way an employer could prove he wasn’t racially discriminating was to engage in racially proportional hiring. The era of racial preferences had begun (link).

I saw this in action. When I did some contract work for Whirlpool headquarters in Benton Harbor, Michigan, I was repairing a computer for one of the executives and they were reviewing a dozen candidates for a position over a conference call. One of the executives said “lets EEOC so who is left” and the man in the room with me said “one Indian two blacks and two women” the voice on the phone asked “what color are the women?” The man in the room with me said “one is black and one white” and the voice on the phone said “throw out the white one and choose among the rest”. I will never forget what I heard that day and you can be sure similar conversations have gone on all around the country.

Employers looked at the Griggs v. Duke Power case and figured that establishing quota’s was the only way to stay out of trouble and some on the court felt that way, but theory has a funny way of parting with reality:

For example, Justice David Souter, one of the court’s most consistently liberal members, has, like Rehnquist, never hired a black clerk in his eight years on the court. Civil rights hero Thurgood Marshall hired no black clerks in his first 10 years on the court. And the late William Brennan, a liberal legend on the court until his retirement in 1990, never hired a black clerk in his 34 years as a justice—apparently eschewing for his own office the racial-preference policies he so vigorously championed for others (link).

Justice Ruth Bator Ginsburg used to claim that judging by the number of minorities hired it would be prima facie evidence of racial discrimination until a Senator threw in her face the fact that “in her 13 years on the D.C. Circuit she had never had a single black law clerk, intern, or secretary. Out of 57 employees, zero blacks” (link).

The Wilkow Guide to Media Perception

NOTE:  Rand Paul, like most libertarians, isn’t really interested in social policy anyways, they are far more interested in economic policy and right now this is a pocketbook election.

One Response to “Elite Media tries to portray Rand Paul as racist. Rand Paul, politics, the elite media and the Civil Rights Act.”

  1. Wesley said

    I openly refuse to address the endless to debate that will ensue about affirmative action, simply because she never mentioned that and liberals won’t either. We accept that that is a legitmiate disagreement we have with republicans.

    [IUSB Vision Editor Responds –

    Yes you believe in race based preferences, we don’t. Remember that according to leaked Democrat Judiciary Committee memo’s they opposed Miguel Estrada’s nomination “because he’s Latino”.

    As far as I am concerned it boils down to this. You are racist, and I oppose racism.]

    We have a problem with the part that Rand Paul brought up in the first place. I can’t imagine why he’s questioning it if he views it like everyone else as absolutely a necessity.

    [IUSB Vision Editor Responds –

    You have a problem with anyone bringing it up for several reasons. That section amounted to quotas and the left often seeks race based preferences in the form of quotas while denying that they are seeking quotas. With that said, nothing that the government does is ever so sacrosanct that it is beyond reexamination. I do not believe in sacred cows and by your own admission you do.]

    First off, you can’t tell me he wasn’t being evasive. She was being pointed, and it is incredibly easy to have just said ‘No i don’t think private business should get to do that.’.
    “Ju-just, yes or no?” I think he eventually realized how toxic the politics of it was, much too late.

    [IUSB Vision Editor Responds –

    Rand Paul was not being evasive.

    He was trying to be clear about his position, which is nuanced and slightly more complicated than “Yes or No”

    It was Rachel Maddow who was trying to wrap Paul’s words around her axle. She was fishing for a sound bite that she could portray as something that was not Rand Paul’s position. He would not give her that sound bite and was correct not to.

    As I stated before and as Rand Paul made clear, the point is not whether or not black people should be turned away at lunch counters. It was government that forced them to do that with the Jim Crow laws and it was not something that the overwhelming majority of business owners wanted.

    Rand Paul believes that the problem with that section has nothing to do with race; rather the problem is the consequences of giving the government that much power and how it results in an unconstitutional expansion of the commerce power in areas having nothing to do with race.

    To understand Rand Paul’s position it takes intellect, and the ability to understand a constitutional law concept that is slightly more complicated then “yes or no”. An intellectual ability which you obviously lack as it has been presented to you multiple ways and you still blow it.]

    He said “There would be some discussion about one of those titles.” As in, he wanted to modify it. He’s never said how he would do so, because as far as I can tell it’s a simple “you can’t discriminate based on race, yes or no’. When he says there’ll be discussion, what does he need to say or do about “You can’t discriminate based on race, yes or no”? What can he change? Or discuss? Is he going to all this effort ot inform us he would’ve had an intellectual exercise with the senators and that said, ‘oh well, it was just a thought’. That doesn’t seem like something that needs to be brought to the legislative table if it isn’t substantive.

    And what I know is that MLK, LBJ, and the liberal left of the democratic party were responsible for the passage of the civil rights act.

    [IUSB Vision Editor Responds –

    Once again you have proved yourself to be factuality inept. Democrats filibustered the Civil Rights Act, 82% of Republicans supported it and took the lead in breaking the Democrat filibuster.]

    Yes, the democrats were largely segregationist in the South, and the South left them BECAUSE they were responsible for civil rights. Is this not public knowledge in your state? I never knew Woodrow Wilson did that, but since I’ve spent no energy defending him it sounds like a guilt-by-association thing to even bring it up.

    Also, do you know what the ‘Southern Strategy’ is?

    [IUSB Vision Editor responds –

    The Southern Strategy is a bogus theory from the Democratic Party that says that the South went Republican because they are racists. This theory ignores the fact that it was Republicans who fought for those rights for Blacks, Democrats who took them away and Republicans who got them restored.

    It also ignores the fact that it was not until the late 1970’s and 1980’s that the South really industrialized in what is nothing short of an economic revolution. The latest real political science shows that the South went Republican for economic reasons that had nothing to do with race.

    By the way, while the Democrat leadership is drumming blacks out of office like Governors Patrick and Patterson, look at the link below to see just how many black GOP candidates are running and wining in the South. Even South Carolina GOP has elected Black Congressman and a governor from India who used to be a Sihk.

    The Year of the Black Republican: Tim Scott Beats Strom Thurmond’s Son for South Carolina Congress Seat.

    GOP Congressional Candidate Star Parker

    By the way Wes, if you need help in getting over your obvious problems with race I might be able to refer you to a nice church who can help you get over it.

    Wes, when are you going to have the strength of character to pony up and admit that you are just plain wrong?]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

<span>%d</span> bloggers like this: