Walter E Williams – Discrimination and Liberty

When Rand Paul suggested the 1964 Civil Rights Act went too far, he was widely criticized by Democrats and Republicans alike. Here, Professor Williams explains why they are wrong and Rand is right, while making a far more important point about liberty itself.

Read Full Post »

Reading list for Rachel Maddow

Rachel, here’s a reading list for you. Please educate yourself to avoid  making a complete fool out of yourself on national television.

• Rand Paul and the Civil Rights Act: Was he right?

• “Civil Rights” and Total War

• When Searching for Racists, Democrats Should Back Off Rand Paul and Look In the Mirror

• In Defense of Bigots

• Hey, Rachel

• ‘Hornberger,’ the Video (You don’t even have to read this one)

• Rand Paul, Civil Rights, and More Liberal Hypocrisy on Race

• The Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Which Only Wicked Oppressors Could Oppose, and For No Good Reason)

• Rachel Maddow vs Rand Paul

• A Question for Rachel Maddow

• Whites Can Still Legally Discriminate Against Blacks

• Rand Paul and the right to be odious

• Libertarianism = Anti-racism

• The Rand Paul Kerfuffle: It’s Not About Racism

• The Right To Discriminate

Read Full Post »

Welcome to Arizona

With all the hoopla over “illegal immigrants”, no one seems to be very concerned about the status of their own dictator.

Read Full Post »

Another dilemma for Rachel Maddow

David Kramer writes:

A racist White store owner cannot legally prevent a Black customer from trading with him. Yet, a racist White customer can legally prevent a Black store owner from trading with him by just not walking into his or her store. So what’s the difference? In both cases, one of the two parties (i.e., the Black person) in the trade is being economically “hurt” by the other party (i.e., the racist White person).

Not to mention the Civil Rights Act only “protects” a limited group of minorities. What about the others?

Read Full Post »

More questions for Rachel Maddow

Thomas DiLorenzo asks:

Why do you think say, a Jewish restaurant owner, should be forced by the governent to serve a neo-Nazi wearing a swastika armband, who just finished marching in a “Hitler Was Right” parade down mainstreat (legally protected by your buds at the ACLU, of course)? Shouldn’t he be free to just say “Get the hell off of my property, you scumbag”? Do you really think that forcing him to serve the Nazi, as the Civil Rights Act would do if enforced, is conducive to freedom? What would give the Nazi a “civil right” to agitate and hector the Jewish restaurant owner in this way?

The Civil Rights Act is anti-freedom.

Read Full Post »

Obama is Ineligible for Office

JB Williams reports:

Nobody spends $2 million in legal fees to hide an authentic birth certificate. The Speaker of the House does not refuse to certify her candidate as “constitutionally qualified” in forty-nine of fifty states by accident. A press that knew he was the “first Kenyan born senator” didn’t forget that he was Kenyan born when he decided to run for president.

Does this mean any law signed while he is illegally president is null and void?

Read Full Post »

Excoriation of the 1964 Civil Rights Act

Source

Read Full Post »

Questions for Rachel Maddow

Wesley Messamore asks:

Rachel, should black restaurant owners be forced to serve white nationalists? Hmm? Say David Duke walked into a black restaurant and wanted to be served. Does the black restaurant owner have a right to say, “Mmm… no thanks, we’d rather not serve you”? Or does David Duke have a right to be served by the black restaurant owner? Yes or no, please.

It’s interesting — to be consistent, Maddow would practically have to say that Duke has a right to the black restaurant owner’s labor, which is dangerously close to advocating something akin to slavery. Yes or no, Maddow?

Let’s use another example: if Fred Phelps (that’s the God Hates Fags guy) walked into a gay bar and demanded to be served a drink, would Maddow support the right of the restaurant owner or bartender to refuse to serve him? Yes or no, please.

The Civil Rights Act institutionalized racism in Amerika. If you support it, you are the one that is racist.

Read Full Post »

Rachel Maddow vs Rand Paul

Rachel Maddow attacked neocon-Rand on her propaganda show tonight.  Maddow was throwing a hissy-fit over Rand’s correct position that the government has no authority to force private businesses not to discriminate based on race (or anything for that matter).

Indeed private businesses, organizations and individuals should be able to create rules for or refuse service to whomever they choose. That includes allowing or refusing service to those that are white, black, brown, gay, straight, handicapped, obese, retarded, cross dressing, transsexual or whatever type of irrelevant characteristic you can conjure up. Not only that but they should be able to allow or refuse smoking, guns, dogs, drugs or anything else on their private property. At the same time, all competing businesses should have the right to do the exact opposite to attract those that don’t approve. If the offending business can’t attract enough customers, then they go out of business. That is how freedom works. Maddow can’t seem to fathom anything other than the use of violence (government) to force her subjective views on everyone else. What an evil excuse for a human being.

Although Maddow thinks she is taking the high road, she fails to address that many minority groups are NOT covered by the Civil Rights Act. I guess only those that the state, and Maddow, deems worthy are those that may receive “equal rights”.

Update: Jim at heygetthis has more (although he doesn’t realize it).

Read Full Post »

Founding Fathers Discuss The Constitution

Read Full Post »