Why Rand Paul is right (Balls-o-Steel of the month winner for May 2010)

Asked whether he believed private businesses should have the right to refuse service to African-Americans, Rand Paul said,

"yes....I'm not in favor of any discrimination of any form. … But I think what's important about this debate is not written 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?.......when they say I'm for repealing the Civil Rights Act, it's absolutely false. It's never been my position and something that I basically just think is politics."

(editor: Mr. Paul, we should only limit racists free speech when the racists in question do not belong to a minority group. )


Legislation, no matter how good or well intended it is, always needs to be analyzed at a later date and even eventually repealed. We are in the analysis phase of the Civil Rights Act, realizing that not only are arts of it faulty altogether, but also that the Law is not equally enforced. For example, it is perfectly fine to discriminate in favor of one ethnic group to the exclusion of other ethnic groups so long as the favored group is a minority group and mostly so long as that minority group is African American.

Additionally, the Civil Rights Act, taken at its word is nearly impossible to fairly enforce. Consider the latest case:

""The Chicago case began in 1995 when 26,000 applicants took a written test to become a city firefighter. Faced with the large number applicants for only several hundred jobs, the city decided it would only consider those who scored 89 or above.

This cut-off score excluded a high percentage of the minority applicants. And after a trial in 2005, U.S. District Judge Joan Gottschall ruled the test had an illegal "disparate impact" because the city had not justified the use of the cut-off score. Experts had testified that applicants who scored in the 70s or 80s were shown to be capable of succeeding as firefighters."""


Now it only makes sense to hire the MOST QUALIFIED applicants, does it not? According to Civil Rights laws, it is not only immoral to hire those best qualified to do the job, but is actually ILLEGAL.

""John Payton, president of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, who argued the case on behalf of the black applicants, said 'Today, the Supreme Court affirmed that job-seekers should not be denied justice based on a technicality,' "

So hiring those who are most qualified to do a job is a technicality that denies justice to job seekers?

Justice Scalia:
"""In Monday's opinion, Scalia acknowledged this law created "practical problems for employers" and could "produce puzzling results." He concluded, however, "it is a problem for Congress, not one that federal courts can fix."""""

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/24/AR2010052401606.html

http://www.latimes.com/news/la-na-firefighters-discrimination-20100525,0,5851246.story?track=rss

So we have the Civil Rights Act not only being abused to justify discrimination in favor of certain ethnic groups, but we also have its application producing "puzzling" and "impractical" results.

All of us are Americans regardless of ethnic background or the color of our skin. The Law should apply EQUALLY to us all. When "anti-discrimination" laws result in actual discrimination it is definitely time for them to be at first analyzed and then eventually repealed, to be replaced by legislation that actually enforces true anti-discrimination measures.

When we start identifying ourselves as AMERICANS instead of these contrived groups that the media and our supposed "leaders" identify us as being, then we will finally begin healing the National divide maintained by those who profit and gain power from said divide.

Thank you Mr. Paul for having the GUTS to question something that is considered absolutely taboo in the world of politics. Rule #23 of Intellectual Honesty: Question EVERYTHING, and most especially question everything that people say you should never ever question.

Here's to Rand Paul for not only exercising intellectual honesty, but having the Balls-o-Steel to actually STAND BEHIND his statements explain them in a way in which their point is further advocated rather than simply explaining away the comments with some sort of pansy equivocation. What I think about Libertarianism in general can be read here, but to you Mr Paul, I raise my glass tonight!