Rand Paul’s mixed civil liberties track record

[sharkbait28]

Just in case yall think I'm suddenly a Rand Paul supporter. I'm cynical enough of the American political process to pat our bullshit politicians on the back when they take the right stance for the wrong reasons.

He's right about the drone program but he's still slimy as hell.

Rand Paul’s mixed civil liberties track record
His filibuster focused on drone strikes against U.S. citizens, but what other positions has Paul taken?

BY JILLIAN RAYFIELD

Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., has been having a good day, getting heaps of praise for drawing attention to the Obama Administration’s drone policy with an almost 13-hour filibuster of John Brennan’s nomination to the CIA. Republicans and conservatives (several of whom have been no friends to civil liberties) rallied around him during the filibuster. Michelle Malkin said he might have helped the Republican Party’s “tarnished brand.” Even liberals like Van Jones, Rachel Maddow and Jon Stewart praised him, with the latter two devoting full show segments to it.

But his record on other civil rights and civil liberties issues has been mixed:

Guantanamo Bay: Paul reversed his position and now opposes closing down the prison, and has said he supports military tribunals: “Foreign terrorists do not deserve the protections of our Constitution…These thugs should stand before military tribunals and be kept off American soil. I will always fight to keep Kentucky safe and that starts with cracking down on our enemies.”

PATRIOT Act: Paul has consistently opposed the PATRIOT Act, even going head-to-head with Harry Reid over the renewal of three provisions of the law back in 2011.

“Ground Zero Mosque”: In 2010, Paul said that he opposed the controversial plans to build an Islamic Center near Ground Zero: “While this is a local matter that will be decided by the people of New York, I do not support a mosque being built two blocks from Ground Zero. In my opinion, the Muslim community would better serve the healing process by making a donation to the memorial fund for the victims of September 11th.”

Free Speech: He said that he might support imprisoning people who attend “radical” speeches: “You might have to indirectly take into account whether or not they’ve been going to radical political speeches by religious leaders. It wouldn’t be that they are Islamic. But if someone is attending speeches from someone who is promoting the violent overthrow of our government, that’s really an offense that we should be going after. They should be deported or put in prison.”

Surveillance: Paul said that he supports monitoring foreign exchange students from the Middle East: “I do want them going after, for example, let’s say we have a 100,000 exchange students from the Middle East — I want to know where they are, how long they’ve been here, if they’ve overstayed their welcome, whether they’re in school.”

Civil Rights Act: When he was running for senate in 2010, Paul said that he opposes the part of the Civil Rights Act that forced private businesses to end segregation, though in the ensuing media frenzy he clarified that he would oppose efforts to repeal it.
Adam Serwer summed it up for the American Prospect back in 2010:

It should be said that Paul appears to have a fairly consistent — if nativist — constitutional philosophy: The Constitution grants certain inalienable rights to Americans but not to foreigners. That shouldn’t be mistaken for Constitutional fidelity, the Constitution distinguishes between “citizens” and “persons” for a reason, and foreigners charged with crimes in the U.S. have always been given the same due process rights as anyone else, precisely because freedom is as much about what government is allowed to do to you as much as it is about what you are allowed to do.

Jillian Rayfield is an Assistant News Editor for Salon, focusing on politics. Follow her on Twitter at @jillrayfield or email her at jrayfield@salon.com.
MORE JILLIAN RAYFIELD.

 

[thoughtone]

 

[thoughtone]

source: Think Progress


Five Ways Rand Paul Whitesplained Politics At Howard University

On Wednesday morning, Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) gave an address at the historically-black Howard University designed to convince black voters to support Republicans. While some of his remarks, most notably on harsh drug laws and other civil liberties issues, were well-received, the majority of the speech consisted in Paul condescendingly explaining American racial history to the audience, occasionally incorrectly, and expecting that it would open black voters’ eyes to the real Republican Party. Here are five moments that encapsulated the general problem with Paul’s speech:

1. The Civil Rights movement is actually the “history of the Republican Party”. The thrust of Paul’s speech was a recapitulation of the history of race and racism and a defense of the Republican record on race (representative line: “The story of emancipation, voting rights and citizenship, from Fredrick Douglass until the modern civil rights era, is in fact the history of the Republican Party.”) The problem was that this speech, ostensibly designed to persuade black voters that the GOP was interested in them, was telling the audience things it already knew. Moreover, the speech didn’t grapple with what happened to make the Democrats the more racially liberal party in the mid-40s or the turn towards racially divisive politics on the Republican right, essentially skipping over the real reason the GOP alienated African-American voters.

2. Assumed the audience didn’t know the history of the NAACP. In one of the most awkward moments of the talk, Paul asked the audience if anyone knew that the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) had been founded by Republicans. The audience responded with a resounding “yes!”

3. Suggested that African-Americans were “demeaning” the history of sergregation by calling voter ID laws discrimination. When asked how African-Americans could trust the Republican Party given its generalized support for discriminatory voter ID laws, Rand Paul told the audience to chill out about the measures, suggesting they were common sense. Paul argued that the view that these laws were an updated version of poll taxes was “[demeaning] the horror” of segregation. NAACP President Benjamin Jealous has said voter ID laws are “pushing more voters out of the ballot box than any point since Jim Crow.”

4. Mangled the name of the first popularly-elected black Senator. In what appeared to be an attempt to demonstrate his familiarity with the subject matter, Paul brought up Senator Edward William Brooke III (a Republican mentioned in the prepared remarks as “the first [elected] black U.S. Senator”). He referred to him, however, as “Edwin Brooks,” a point the audience corrected.

5. Misled about his opposition to the Civil Rights Act. Paul said “I’ve never wavered in my support for civil rights or the Civil Rights Act.” The problem, as Mother Jones‘ Adam Serwer pointed out, is that he opposed the law’s ban on discrimination in “places of public accommodation” like businesses, one of its most important planks. As an audience member asking Paul about this issue pointed out, “this was on tape.”
​

If Paul wants to spearhead Republican overtures to African-Americans, he’s got his work cut out for him. Over 50 percent of black voters in the last election believed Republicans “don’t care at all about civil rights,” while 71 percent thought Democrats were doing strong work in the area. President Obama won 93 percent of black voters.

 

[thoughtone]

source: Think Progress

Rand Paul Falsely Says He Never Opposed The Civil Rights Act

Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) opposes the Civil Rights Act of 1964′s bans on whites-only lunch counters and discrimination by private employers. We know this because there are multiple videos of him opposing the Civil Rights Act of 1964′s bans on whites-only lunch counters and discrimination by private employers. Here’s video of him saying it to a Kentucky paper’s editorial board. Here’s a lengthy interview where he tries to defend his opposition to the Civil Rights Act to MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow. Here’s video from just last year of him defending his father’s opposition to the Civil Rights Act (according to Rand Paul, “it’s not all about race relations, it’s about controlling property, ultimately.”) Still don’t believe that Paul opposes the Civil Rights Act? You can watch this embedded video of Paul saying that “the hard part about believing in freedom” is that you have to oppose the Civil Rights Act:



<CENTER><IFRAME height=260 src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/MWBDWU7qES8" frameBorder=0 width=400 allowfullscreen></IFRAME></CENTER>
Nor is this a particularly new position for Sen. Paul. In a 2002 letter to his hometown newspaper, Paul wrote that “[a] free society will abide unofficial, private discrimination – even when that means allowing hate-filled groups to exclude people based on the color of their skin.”

So it is a bit baffling that Paul told an audience at the historically black Howard University today that he actually believes something else:

Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), a proponent of civil liberties, told a professor on Wednesday that he never opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

“I’ve never been against the Civil Rights Act. Ever,” he said during a question and answer session at the historically black Howard University in Washington.

“This was on tape,” countered the questioner.

“I have been concerned about the ramifications of the Civil Rights Act beyond race…but I’ve never come out in opposition,” Paul clarified.
​

Again, Paul has never said that he is “concerned about the ramifications of the Civil Rights Act beyond race.” He’s said — repeatedly, over a period of many years, and sometimes on video — that he opposes applying federal civil rights law to private businesses, such as the private business where this picture was taken:

 

[muckraker10021]

Most Americans, particularly young Americans, get all of their "news" via television including 'comedy' television.

<object width="480" height="396"><param name="movie" value="http://embed.crooksandliars.com/v/MjcwNjQtNjgxMDM?color=c93033" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="quality" value="high" /><param name="wmode" value="transparent" /><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always" /><embed src="http://embed.crooksandliars.com/v/MjcwNjQtNjgxMDM?color=c93033" quality="high" wmode="transparent" width="480" height="396" allowfullscreen="true" name="clembedMjcwNjQtNjgxMDM" align="middle" quality="high" allowScriptAccess="always" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" pluginspage="http://www.adobe.com/go/getflashplayer"></embed></object>

 

[Greed]

Rand Paul tells black crowd at Simmons College of Kentucky that GOP 'is not hostile t

Rand Paul tells black crowd at Simmons College of Kentucky that GOP 'is not hostile to civil rights'
Written by Joseph Gerth The Courier-Journal
Apr. 14

U.S. Sen. Rand Paul made his Republican pitch to African Americans on Friday at Simmons College of Kentucky, telling the largely black crowd that the GOP “is not hostile to civil rights.”

Speaking just two days after his speech at historically black Howard University in Washington was criticized by some as condescending, Paul said it was important for Republicans to reach out to African-American voters.

“I also do it because I’m a politician,” he said. “I’m self-interested, I want to get more votes, and we’re not doing very well with the African-American voter.”

Paul, a Kentuckian who is considering a presidential bid in 2016, requested the meeting at Simmons, according to Ralph Fitzpatrick, senior executive vice president of the Louisville college at 1018 S. Seventh St.

But his audience of about 50 students, professors and other attendees rarely clapped for Paul when he made policy statements on issues that included schools, economics, jobs and race.

One man, who was not a student at the school, cursed at Paul before being escorted out of the room. But otherwise, those who attended were polite.

Paul acknowledged criticism for the speech he gave at Howard University Wednesday, saying, “I think some think a white person is not allowed to talk about black history ... which I think is unfair.”

At Howard, he spoke for about an hour about how, historically, Democrats opposed integration and minority voting rights, while Republicans were the party of Abraham Lincoln.

At Simmons, he talked about how blacks once registered in large numbers as Republicans, how Democrats in Kentucky opposed constitutional amendments that gave African Americans expanded rights and how Henry Watterson, editor of The Courier-Journal from its creation in 1868 until 1919, opposed letting black people vote.

“Much of the public doesn’t know that anymore, and part of my reason for bringing it out was that so people know Republicans aren’t hostile to civil rights or somehow to African Americans,” he said.

Civil rights has been a controversial subject for Paul. During his 2010 race for the U.S. Senate, he questioned the portion of the 1964 Civil Rights Act that prohibits private businesses from discriminating based on race and religion.

In an editorial board meeting with The Courier-Journal in 2010, Paul was asked about the Civil Rights Act.

“Under your philosophy, it would be OK for Dr. (Martin Luther) King to not be served at the counter at Woolworth’s?” he was asked during the meeting.

“I would not go to that Woolworth’s, and I would stand up in my community and say it’s abhorrent,” he responded. “In a free society, we will tolerate boorish people who have abhorrent behavior. But if we’re civilized people, we publicly criticize that and don’t belong to those groups or associate with those people.”

At Simmons on Friday, Paul said, “I think what’s mostly been unfair about it is, I’ve never expressed opposition to the Civil Rights Act; that’s just a fact. Never have. There’s tapes of me all over having discussions about portions of it but never saying I was opposed to the Civil Rights Act.

“... It’s not that I was opposed to the outcome of ending segregation, ending discrimination at Woolworth’s, you name it,” he said.

Paul said his concern was that Congress used the “Commerce Clause” of the Constitution to regulate businesses, which he said was later used to give government too much power. He said there was need for federal intervention on race relations in the 1960s.

The Rev. Kevin Cosby, who is president of Simmons and led the discussion, said afterward that he agreed with Paul on issues ranging from school choice to opposing expansion of the “military” and “prison industrial complex.” But he said the jury is still out on Paul regarding civil rights.

“I’m still trying to get a handle on what his positions are,” Cosby said.

Shawn Billups, a student at Indiana University Southeast and supporter of Paul’s father, former U.S. Rep. Ron Paul, said he thought Sen. Paul’s discussion made good inroads in the community. He said he agreed with Paul on several issues, and while he said he may not agree with him on civil rights issues, he didn’t hold that against Paul.

“I think I get the gist of what he’s saying. He is for civil rights,” Billups said. He said Paul has concerns about forcing businesses not to discriminate and “I may not agree with him fully, but I know where he’s coming from and it’s not as a racist ... it’s just he’s upholding the Constitution.”

Fitzpatrick said he didn’t know if Paul gained ground with black voters but said he should be given credit for requesting the meeting.

http://www.courier-journal.com/arti...-GOP-not-hostile-civil-rights-?nclick_check=1

 

[thoughtone]

^^^^^^