Star Parker: Rand Paul works to help black people

[Galileo]

http://cjonline.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/story_slideshow_thumb/13519327_9.jpg

Star Parker: Rand Paul works to help black people

February 16, 2015 - 7:43pm

By Star Parker

Center for Urban Renewal and Education


The Congressional Black Caucus will forgo no opportunity to retard black progress and undermine the ideals that were once understood to be the goals of the civil rights movement.

In the latest example, the caucus has issued a press release calling Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., a racist for opposing confirmation of Loretta Lynch as the next U.S. Attorney General.

Paul earlier issued a press release stating three reasons for his opposition to Lynch. The caucus ignored two and called the third, her support for civil asset forfeiture, “...nothing but an excuse to keep an African American legal scholar from holding this high position. ...”

MORE:

http://cjonline.com/opinion/2015-02-16/star-parker-rand-paul-works-help-black-people#.VOLH2sbLk5c.facebook

:bobo

[Galileo]

where are all the blacks on this? They stand mute.

:sleep

[DarrinS]

Conspiracy nutters love them some Ron/Rand Paul.

[boutons_deux]

right-wingers don't shit for non-whites, they do shit TO non-whites

[Spurminator]

Whatever the Paul family is paying you, it's too much.

[DarrinS]

right-wingers don't shit for non-whites, the do shit TO non-whites

Did you have a mild stroke recently?

[boutons_deux]

Rand Paul’s big mistake: Why his unofficial presidential campaign is flailing already

Just before sundown on Monday, Politico unveiled a report (http://www.politico.com/story/2015/02/rand-paul-wall-street-2016-elections-115226.html?hp=t2_r) on how Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul’s support for auditing the Federal Reserve (http://money.cnn.com/2015/02/11/news/economy/rand-paul-audit-the-fed/) has been received thus far on Wall Street. “Very poorly” seems to be the answer. According to Politico, in fact, the likely presidential candidate’s attempts to bring “the Fed” into the light may have permanently lowered the stock of “the most interesting man in politics (http://www.politico.com/magazine/politico50/2014/rand-paul-01.html#.VONiGGRViko)” — at least among the conservative members of the 1 percent. “The Fed is the pre-eminent central bank on the planet,” said one anonymous Wall Street big shot, “and no one wants to put that at risk.” The party establishment, he added, would “go on red alert” if necessary to deny Paul the GOP nomination.

the Politico report is a surprise — as well as an example of why Paul’s chance at the nomination has always been overstated. Because while you’d expect the GOP’s establishment types to disdain Paul’s anti-Fed populism, you wouldn’t figure the pushback would come this early or this strong. And although you’d imagine that a pseudo-libertarian like Paul would flourish in the Tea Party-era GOP, you’d be mistaken if you saw the years spent talking about free-markets and liberty as anything more than simple branding. Each one would be a serious misstep; and it looks right now like Paul made ‘em both.

close observers of theinvisible primary (http://politicaldictionary.com/words/invisible-primary/) for the GOP’s presidential nomination knew that it was only a matter of time until the party’s Wall Street wing tried to sink Paul. Yet most figured it would happen later, after the primary had begun in earnest and once the establishment-friendly candidates had quarreled over donors enough to wear each other down and expose one another’s weaknesses.

the other Paul misstep is more relevant to country at large. (And it reveals another reason why Paul should regard Bush’s quick ascendance as such a threat.) From today’s vantage, it looks like Paul made a real error by taking the rhetoric of the Tea Party so seriously.


http://www.salon.com/2015/02/17/rand_pauls_big_mistake_why_his_unofficial_presiden tial_campaign_is_flailing_already/

[Galileo]

Rand Paul’s big mistake: Why his unofficial presidential campaign is flailing already

Just before sundown on Monday, Politico unveiled a report (http://www.politico.com/story/2015/02/rand-paul-wall-street-2016-elections-115226.html?hp=t2_r) on how Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul’s support for auditing the Federal Reserve (http://money.cnn.com/2015/02/11/news/economy/rand-paul-audit-the-fed/) has been received thus far on Wall Street. “Very poorly” seems to be the answer. According to Politico, in fact, the likely presidential candidate’s attempts to bring “the Fed” into the light may have permanently lowered the stock of “the most interesting man in politics (http://www.politico.com/magazine/politico50/2014/rand-paul-01.html#.VONiGGRViko)” — at least among the conservative members of the 1 percent. “The Fed is the pre-eminent central bank on the planet,” said one anonymous Wall Street big shot, “and no one wants to put that at risk.” The party establishment, he added, would “go on red alert” if necessary to deny Paul the GOP nomination.

the Politico report is a surprise — as well as an example of why Paul’s chance at the nomination has always been overstated. Because while you’d expect the GOP’s establishment types to disdain Paul’s anti-Fed populism, you wouldn’t figure the pushback would come this early or this strong. And although you’d imagine that a pseudo-libertarian like Paul would flourish in the Tea Party-era GOP, you’d be mistaken if you saw the years spent talking about free-markets and liberty as anything more than simple branding. Each one would be a serious misstep; and it looks right now like Paul made ‘em both.

close observers of theinvisible primary (http://politicaldictionary.com/words/invisible-primary/) for the GOP’s presidential nomination knew that it was only a matter of time until the party’s Wall Street wing tried to sink Paul. Yet most figured it would happen later, after the primary had begun in earnest and once the establishment-friendly candidates had quarreled over donors enough to wear each other down and expose one another’s weaknesses.

the other Paul misstep is more relevant to country at large. (And it reveals another reason why Paul should regard Bush’s quick ascendance as such a threat.) From today’s vantage, it looks like Paul made a real error by taking the rhetoric of the Tea Party so seriously.


http://www.salon.com/2015/02/17/rand_pauls_big_mistake_why_his_unofficial_presiden tial_campaign_is_flailing_already/

Salon? This is the same outfit that just threw sludge on the Boston Tea Party.

:owned

[boutons_deux]

Salon? This is the same outfit that just threw sludge on the Boston Tea Party.

:owned

:lol in your dreams

[boutons_deux]

Rand Paul slams gay rights in unearthed 2013 interview: “I don’t really believe in rights based on your behavior”

It never ceases to amaze how many people assume that because Rand Paul says reasonable things about the drug war and describes himself as a libertarian conservative, he must be down with the gay rights movement. This isn’t simply a belief shared by low-information voters; indeed, it often creeps into media coverage of the Kentucky senator and likely 2016 presidential candidate. In 2014, NPR described Paul (http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2014/03/07/287367440/cpacs-conservative-libertarian-split-could-be-hard-to-bridge) as the candidate of GOP voters “more tolerant of same-sex marriage,” and Politico has suggested (http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/03/rand-paul-america-hates-liberterians-104858.html#.VRqlJWR4qMa) that Paul would offer the gay community “a presidential pat on the head.”

But despite the widely held perception that Paul represents a break with the GOP’s anti-gay record, there’s little that separates Paul from Rick Santorum on LGBT issues.

He has long opposed marriage equality and non-discrimination protections, and just within the past month,

Paul has declared that same-sex nuptials “offend” (http://www.ibtimes.com/rand-paul-same-sex-marriage-it-offends-me-video-1840048) him and called marriage equality a sign of a “moral crisis (http://www.salon.com/2015/03/27/we_need_a_revival_in_the_country_rand_paul_suggest _marriage_equality_reflects_moral_crisis/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=socialflow)” in American society.

Now, thanks to BuzzFeed’s Dominic Holden (http://www.buzzfeed.com/dominicholden/rand-paul-doesnt-believe-in-the-concept-of-gay-rights?bftw&utm_term=4ldqpgc#.iemGkWR8D), we have further evidence of Paul’s deep-seated anti-gay views.

Holden unearthed a little-noticed 2013 interview in which Paul effectively tried to marry his libertarian views with his opposition to gay equality, declaring that he supports rights for individuals, but not those for groups and not those based on “behavior.”

“I don’t think I’ve ever used the word gay rights, because I don’t really believe in rights based on your behavior,” Paul said.

http://www.salon.com/2015/03/31/rand_paul_slams_gay_rights_in_unearthed_2013_inter view_i_don%E2%80%99t_really_believe_in_rights_base d_on_your_behavior/

iow, Paul, pere et fils, are racists, bigots, anti-freedom hypocritical assholes just like run-of-the-mill Confederate Christian Taliban.

[Galileo]

Rand Paul slams gay rights in unearthed 2013 interview: “I don’t really believe in rights based on your behavior”

It never ceases to amaze how many people assume that because Rand Paul says reasonable things about the drug war and describes himself as a libertarian conservative, he must be down with the gay rights movement. This isn’t simply a belief shared by low-information voters; indeed, it often creeps into media coverage of the Kentucky senator and likely 2016 presidential candidate. In 2014, NPR described Paul (http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2014/03/07/287367440/cpacs-conservative-libertarian-split-could-be-hard-to-bridge) as the candidate of GOP voters “more tolerant of same-sex marriage,” and Politico has suggested (http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/03/rand-paul-america-hates-liberterians-104858.html#.VRqlJWR4qMa) that Paul would offer the gay community “a presidential pat on the head.”

But despite the widely held perception that Paul represents a break with the GOP’s anti-gay record, there’s little that separates Paul from Rick Santorum on LGBT issues.

He has long opposed marriage equality and non-discrimination protections, and just within the past month,

Paul has declared that same-sex nuptials “offend” (http://www.ibtimes.com/rand-paul-same-sex-marriage-it-offends-me-video-1840048) him and called marriage equality a sign of a “moral crisis (http://www.salon.com/2015/03/27/we_need_a_revival_in_the_country_rand_paul_suggest _marriage_equality_reflects_moral_crisis/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=socialflow)” in American society.

Now, thanks to BuzzFeed’s Dominic Holden (http://www.buzzfeed.com/dominicholden/rand-paul-doesnt-believe-in-the-concept-of-gay-rights?bftw&utm_term=4ldqpgc#.iemGkWR8D), we have further evidence of Paul’s deep-seated anti-gay views.

Holden unearthed a little-noticed 2013 interview in which Paul effectively tried to marry his libertarian views with his opposition to gay equality, declaring that he supports rights for individuals, but not those for groups and not those based on “behavior.”

“I don’t think I’ve ever used the word gay rights, because I don’t really believe in rights based on your behavior,” Paul said.

http://www.salon.com/2015/03/31/rand_paul_slams_gay_rights_in_unearthed_2013_inter view_i_don%E2%80%99t_really_believe_in_rights_base d_on_your_behavior/

iow, Paul, pere et fils, are racists, bigots, anti-freedom hypocritical assholes just like run-of-the-mill Confederate Christian Taliban.

All people have rights, not just gay people, faggot.

[boutons_deux]

All people have rights, not just gay people, faggot.

To repeat ad nauseam, Rand Paul is saying he doesn't "believe" in some rights, and certainly wouldn't ENFORCE those rights if he had the chance, without enforcement, ALL CLAIMED RIGHTS ARE ALIENABLE.

[Galileo]

To repeat ad nauseam, Rand Paul is saying he doesn't "believe" in some rights, and certainly wouldn't ENFORCE those rights if he had the chance, without enforcement, ALL CLAIMED RIGHTS ARE ALIENABLE.

I stand with Star Parker. All people have the same rights.

[boutons_deux]

:lol you guys are hilarious, you got NO EFFECTIVE RIGHTS unless somebody enforces them.

[The Reckoning]

:cry don't vote for paul because conspiracy theorists vote for him :cry

[boutons_deux]

:cry don't vote for paul because conspiracy theorists vote for him :cry

don't vote for Paul because he and libertarianism are totally fraudulent

[Blizzardwizard]

don't vote for Paul because he and libertarianism are totally fraudulent

Libertarianism is fraudulent ain't it? :lol "We're not Republicans, we promise we're different :cry"

[The Reckoning]

croutons has a fetish for being wire-tapped

[The Reckoning]

and it's so cute when non-americans comment on our politics :lol

[boutons_deux]

croutons has a fetish for being wire-tapped

libertarians, if they ever won national power, wouldn't dare touch the NSA/FBI/CIA/mlitarized police state.

[The Reckoning]

Rand voted NO on the extension. Cruz and Obama supported it.

[boutons_deux]

Rand voted NO on the extension. Cruz and Obama supported it.

RP has no power, so his vote is meaningless. What would he do if he had real power to fulfill your dream, to sign a mythical bill (it won't happen) to scale back the police state if he were Pres?

[The Reckoning]

RP has no power, so his vote is meaningless. What would he do if he had real power to fulfill your dream, to sign a mythical bill (it won't happen) to scale back the police state if he were Pres?

its not about signing mythical bills, it's about vetoing the extension of previous ones.

[boutons_deux]

its not about signing mythical bills, it's about vetoing the extension of previous ones.

iow, RP has no power to veto. Given the power (he'll never have it) to really restrain the police state, iow, eyeball-to-eyeball with the police state, he wouldn't restrain shit.

[The Reckoning]

only time I'll ever care enough to vote for a president is if they promise to do away with big brother and admit that the Patriot Act has been misused and is unethical

[Clipper Nation]

Libertarianism is fraudulent ain't it? :lol "We're not Republicans, we promise we're different :cry"

:lol Socialists

:cry "We're not communist fascists, we promise we're different" :cry

[Blizzardwizard]

and it's so cute when non-americans comment on our politics :lol

Y'all calling me stupid? :lol

[Blizzardwizard]

:lol Socialists

:cry "We're not communist fascists, we promise we're different" :cry

Hey, at least socialists bring about real change unlike the pussy politics of Liberals and Conservatives who talk about change but never once exact it.

[Clipper Nation]

Hey, at least socialists bring about real change unlike the pussy politics of Liberals and Conservatives who talk about change but never once exact it.
:lol "Real change" like a welfare line that wraps around the block and absolutely zero incentive to work for a living.

[Blizzardwizard]

:lol "Real change" like a welfare line that wraps around the block and absolutely zero incentive to work for a living.

Keep on towing the Conservative party line :lol

"We have no idea what socialism means, quick get Bill O'Reilly to make up random BS about welfare".

[boutons_deux]

:lol "Real change" like a welfare line that wraps around the block and absolutely zero incentive to work for a living.

you ignorant fucks parroting Repug/VRWC talking points, and of course, no evidence, just "blind faith"-based bullshit.

[Slutter McGee]

you ignorant fucks parroting Repug/VRWC talking points

Says the person constantly posting Salon and other liberal rags, and then ignoring posts that specifically point out when they are wrong. Hell, half the time your only original contribution to your posts are "Fuck the Repugs, racist fuckers" or something similar.

Seriously, boutons, you are who you are. Fine, but you really have absolutely no business going after somebody for parroting talking points.

Slutter McGee

[boutons_deux]

Seriously, slut MY POINTS and quotes are truth, rightnut/Repug/VRWC/Fox/hate-media talking points are FUCKING LIES.