They were never on our side

May 27, 2010


“I abhor racism, I think it’s a bad business decision to ever exclude anybody from your restaurant, but at the same time, I do believe in private ownership.” — Rand Paul

If you notice, they have never been on our side.

“They” meaning social conservatives. “Our” meaning African-American people.

They were not there in the century after the Civil War, as conservative Southern Democrats violently repressed would-be black voters, made a shadow government of the Ku Klux Klan, turned a deaf ear to the howling of lynch mobs and lynch victims. They have not been there in the half century since, as conservative Southern Republicans fought affirmative action, poverty programs, and attempts to ban the American swastika, i.e., the Confederate battle flag, from public lands.

They have never been on our side and always, they have claimed “principle” to justify it. So remarks like the one above that got Kentucky senatorial candidate Rand Paul in trouble last week are surprising only in the sense that one is surprised to hear an oldie on the radio one hasn’t heard in a while.

He first told the editorial board of the Louisville Courier-Journal, then reiterated in last week’s interview with MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow, that he thinks the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964 overreached in telling private businesses they could not discriminate against black people. Paul, a Republican, a tea-party favorite and an apostle of tiny government, considers private ownership sacrosanct.

If that sounds familiar, it’s because it was also the reasoning of segregationists in ’63 and ’64.

The civil rights bill “would dictate to private businessmen who they must do business with,” said ex-Mississippi Gov. J.P. Coleman.

It “would further impinge on the right of private property in this country,” said Georgia Sen. Richard Russell.

It represents a “threat to the fundamental right of private property ownership,” said the Jackson (Miss.) Daily News.

With an obtuseness that can only be called stunning, Paul repeated that reasoning to Maddow, then dismissed the whole thing as “abstract,” and “obscure.”

Spoken like a man whose forebears never suffered the stark humiliation of arriving in a strange town and having to ask around for a hotel that would take them or a restaurant that would serve them.

And frankly, if anyone had shown such tender concern for American principles from the beginning, there’d never have been a need for a Civil Rights Act in the first place.

What part of the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments did they not get? What part of “all men are created equal” confused them? As poet Gil Scott-Heron once observed, “I have become a special amendment for what included me all along.”

Paul, under fire for his extremist views, has now recanted them. And he’d like you to know he would have marched with Martin Luther King if he’d had the chance.

Because, ironically enough, he came of age in the world the act created, he probably even believes that. “Everyone” thinks they would’ve marched with King — “now,” when having done so is a badge of honor. But Paul would “not” have marched with Martin Luther King in 1964, when doing so was an act of courage. Nor, by definition, would Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck or any other social conservative.

They have “never” been on our side. No, they would have been on the side of the Confederate flag-wavers, the church bombers and cross burners, piously decrying those peoples’ excesses but providing the intellectual cover that allowed the excesses to continue. Faced with people crying to be free, they’d have retreated behind dry legalisms to explain why freedom could not be had. That’s what social conservatives did 46 years ago.

Apparently, they are doing it still.

— Leonard Pitts Jr., is a columnist for the Miami Herald. He chats with readers from noon to 1 p.m. CDT each Wednesday on www.MiamiHerald.com. lpitts@miamiherald.com


Liberty_One 5 years, 1 month ago

I like how Pitts is judging someone by trying to place him in a group of people instead of as an individual. Apparantly we shouldn't judge Paul by his actions, words, or personal merits, but instead as a Southern Republican, Social Conservative, or even as a Segregationist. Paul is one of "them" and I guess we should all judge him with the people he's been lumped in with by Pitts.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 5 years, 1 month ago

" Apparantly we shouldn't judge Paul by his actions, words, or personal merits,"

On the contrary. Rand made the statements he's now furiously trying to retract, and Pitts is holding him accountable.

parrothead8 5 years, 1 month ago

Gimme a break. If a liberal used the same kind of politico-speak Paul used, you'd be vilifying him as an un-patriotic enemy of the people, but when it's someone like Rand Paul supporting your silly little sacrosanct property rights, you make it into an either-or issue. The fact of the matter is, it's not that simple. You can't claim that property rights are separate from civil rights when they are used to deny those rights to one particular race. In the Maddow interview, Paul point blank makes the comparison that if you tell business owners they have to let black people into their businesses, then you have to tell them to let guns into their businesses...an absolutely ludicrous comparison. If the worst thing you can say about Pitts is that he lumps Paul in with social conservatives - who stand idly by and do nothing, instead claiming that property rights supersede basic human rights - then I really don't see where the problem is with Pitts.

Liberty275 5 years, 1 month ago

That's the problem with liberals, they don't believe in the concept of "property" even if the property is your own body or thoughts, fifth and first amendments be damned.

gatekeeper 5 years, 1 month ago

You are such a joke. Liberals don't believe in property???? It's the conservatives that are always trying to shove their "baby killer' crp down everyone's throats because they don't believe a woman's body is her own property, and then you spout this crp about how liberals don't even consider their own body their property.

Good try liberty, but you fail.

geekyhost 5 years, 1 month ago

And when they wrote it, property was also sometimes human.

Jaylee 5 years, 1 month ago

Wow, Tom! I am proud of you! The first step to recovery is admitting guilt!

Can I get a here, here?

devobrun 5 years, 1 month ago

We are all racist, beo. The meaning of the word is lost. If you define yourself in an ethnic fashion, then all others are racist. Since all people are allowed to define themselves in an ethnic fashion, all others are racists. Therefore we are all racist.

Because Leonard Pitts couches most of his columns in racist terms, most of his columns are racist entanglements. I've read a few of his columns that are not racial and the man can think.

Too bad he takes the easy way out so often.

Flap Doodle 5 years, 1 month ago

Worth repeating: “ 28 March 2009 at 6:40 p.m. beobachter (Anonymous) says… Ok, I'm done, you don't need to ban my account, I won't be back.” ;)

grammaddy 5 years, 1 month ago

Never have been, never will be. Unfortunately "that side" seems to be growing in this "post racial" America.Better go back and re-read the 13th,14th, and 15th amendments. Thanks Leonard! Enjoyed your column as usual.

grammaddy 5 years, 1 month ago

Not at all what I meant. But I would expect you to pick at it in that manner.

puddleglum 5 years, 1 month ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

Cait McKnelly 5 years, 1 month ago

I grew up in the 50s and 60s when racism was a way of life. I went to an all white grade school, an all white junior high and when I went to high school in the late 60's we finally had a few black kids. You could count them on the fingers of one hand. They were a scared and lonely little group lost in a sea of white. This was not Mississippi or Georgia. This was Kansas. I can't cite the study or the source because I can't remember it but I recall reading somewhere that the vast majority of blacks in the US now have some degree of Caucasian blood. Are we going to go back to the days of mulattos, quadroons and octoroons? Rand Paul is in the class of racists that I am very familiar with; the ones that say, "Why I have a very good friend that's black.", like it's some kind of flag or token to prove that they "aren't racist". I have four children and at one time or another all four have dated black or mixed race people. I didn't give it a thought. My oldest daughter was married to an American Indian. Catch Rand Paul doing that with his kids. And that's the point. The mere fact that Paul even considers the color of someone's skin as being a deciding factor in anything is what makes him a racist.

Cait McKnelly 5 years, 1 month ago

"I have alot of 'Friends' that 'Proudly' claim that their kids go out with other cultures too!"

You took a paragraph I wrote completely out of context. I didn't write that to prove that I wasn't racist. I could give a rat's a$$ what you or anybody else thinks about my "PC"ness. Take a look at the last line of the paragraph. In fact, take a look at the last line of the post.

Cait McKnelly 5 years, 1 month ago

"And I guess not wanting to mix races makes one a racist now?"

Why yes, Tom, yes it does considering that practically every person in the US that has been here more than two or three generations is already "mixed race".

Jaylee 5 years, 1 month ago

If you, as a white man, loved a black woman, but wouldn't marry or mate with her to uphold your ideal of not mixing races, even though you loved that black woman, I would say that "not wanting to mix races" is absolutely racist. DUH

tomatogrower 5 years, 1 month ago

But what is private business? If you open a restaurant, you open it to the public. Public means anyone who wants to do business with you. I think private business is something that takes place in your bathroom.

I personally have judged Paul by his words and actions, and still found him to be a politician talking out of both sides of his mouth, so I have no sympathy for him. And yes, I did hear the whole interview.

Liberty275 5 years, 1 month ago

Private business means the owner can tell anyone to get off their property, and they will not be provided a good or service. Publicly owned means the stockholders have a say in the matter.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 5 years, 1 month ago

"Private business means the owner can tell anyone to get off their property,"

If the private business is open to the general public, then they are a public accommodation. There must be reasonable cause before they can deny services to anyone. The owner's racism does not constitute reasonable cause.

devobrun 5 years, 1 month ago

You beg the question, bozo: what is reasonable cause?

Red bandannas, hand signals? Rough behavior, scary people who chase other customers away? Behavior that you, the owner, doesn't like in your establishment, but can't stop because you'd be labeled a racist?

It could all be labeled racist and probably is racist.

But it is your establishment and you don't want people who are scary to frequent the place. Sorry, you are a racist.

In fact, bozo, you are a racist. So am I. We all are. So long as violence isn't involved, why do you care if thugs, crazies, loud and offensive people are not welcome?

Public doesn't mean mindless. Public doesn't mean without scruples or limitations, or rules, or definitions of "the place".

Don't like it? Don't go there.

Will all places be Tellers? No Will all places be biker bars? No Will all places be Latino drunk tanks? No

If you want to hang with the bikers, go ahead. If you want to hang with the fashionistas, go for it.

But when the government, via Leonard Pitts gets involved, look out for the political correctness crowd. Nobody likes them. They are weasels, bozo. Black biker bars are cool. Way better than watching washed up KU art professors drink in meaningless context at Tellers.

So are the black bikers racist, or are the Asian artists racist? Doesn't matter does it?

Jaylee 5 years, 1 month ago

devobrun, what the biznass are you talking about?!

I, for one, am not racist. So toot your own horn, mate!

Alfred_W 5 years, 1 month ago

+++You beg the question, bozo: what is reasonable cause?

Red bandannas, hand signals? Rough behavior, scary people who chase other customers away? Behavior that you, the owner, doesn't like in your establishment, but can't stop because you'd be labeled a racist?+++

You just answered your own question. Choosing whom to do business with because of their BEHAVIOR is fine.

Choosing whom to do business with because of their genetic composition is not.

The distinction is a clear as, uh, black and white...

devobrun 5 years, 1 month ago

Alfred, you have just defined racism as discrimination based upon skin color. But that isn't the nature of Mr Pitts' complaint. To whit: "Paul, a Republican, a tea-party favorite and an apostle of tiny government, considers private ownership sacrosanct.

If that sounds familiar, it’s because it was also the reasoning of segregationists in ’63 and ’64."

Private ownership and tiny government identifies one as a segregationist according to Mr. Pitts. Oh, and there are many other indicators of racism not associated with skin color, Alfred.

The discrimination of people on the basis of behavior is often cited as racism.

Further Pitts anger: "Nor, by definition, would Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck or any other social conservative.

They have “never” been on our side."

So, by definition, social conservatives are racists. Nothing about skin color there, Alfred.

Look closer, Alfred. Pitts is engaged in a rage against people who would discriminate against those who believe in a world of individualism. He is against the notion of limited government and personal responsibility and worth.

In other words, he defines himself ethnically, as a member of a group. All who are not of his ethnicity are rendered racist. Group-think always leads to rage and hatred toward those who oppose the group. Not the particular group.....just groups in general are to be cherished when you think as a group.

I am not a member of a group. Never have been. Never will be.

Jaylee 5 years, 1 month ago

Actually you're a member of the "I believe myself to not be a part of any groups" group.

jafs 5 years, 1 month ago

He doesn't consider all those not of his race racist.

He considers those who use the argument of private property in order to prevent black people from having equality racist.

devobrun 5 years, 1 month ago

And Mr Pitts is a bigot.: bigot: a person who has strong, unreasonable beliefs and who thinks that anyone who does not have the same beliefs is wrong.

Mr Pitts has labeled Mr. Paul, Mrs. Palin and a whole host of others as having dissimilar beliefs to his. They are "not on his side".

He calls them segregationists and hypocrites, and "No, they would have been on the side of the Confederate flag-wavers, the church bombers and cross burners".

Mr. Pitts is either correct, and all these people are horrible because they support individuality, or Mr Pitts is a bigot. I don't have to support Limbaugh, Palin, Glenn Beck to see that Leonard Pitts is an angry black man. He uses the ruse of being shut out of restaurants as a sword and shield. He can walk into more bars, restaurants, and dives in this world than I can.

This article is the most racist, bigoted thing I've read in a long time. He should be ashamed of himself.

rbwaa 5 years, 1 month ago

Wasn't slavery a private enterprise? What would our nation be like if that "private enterprise" had continued?

gatekeeper 5 years, 1 month ago

Very dangerous political statements I have been hearing from the right... ........

I shudder everytime I hear the the teabaggers and crazy righties shouting "I want my country back". Even my elderly parents immediately said those people are just racist, scared that we now have blacks in power and what they mean when they want their country back is they want things returned to the 50's. My parents were very open minded when it came to people of all races and my mom talked about how terrible she felt when everything was segregated.

Stuart Evans 5 years, 1 month ago

PItts should be arrested for animal cruelty. Because he has beaten that poor dead horse to a 2nd death. We get it, you're black. I'm sorry on behalf of someone I never met who oppressed your people. there, all better now?

Stuart Evans 5 years, 1 month ago

you're right. I'm not sorry. I don't oppress people, and I don't support those who do. I also see Mr. Pitts as an antagonist, propagating this racial divide in our country. If there were never a black congressman, or a black supreme court justice, or a black athlete, let alone a black president, I might consider feeling bad about the plight of that race. But lots of groups of people have been enslaved throughout the history of man, and I'm pretty sure that part of my mixture was amongst them.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 5 years, 1 month ago

" I don't oppress people,"


"and I don't support those who do."

But that's precisely what you're doing now.

yankeevet 5 years, 1 month ago

So tired of hearing that african pitts........................one a...........hole

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 5 years, 1 month ago

"Not one person here or on the other thread discussing Paul could point to a single thing he said that would indicate he was a racist,"

He has very clearly stated that he is more than comfortable allowing those who are racist inflict their racism on others because he respects private property rights more than he does civil rights. And that, in itself, is racist.

gatekeeper 5 years, 1 month ago

Thank you Bozo for pointing out the obvious to the clueless on here.

Cracks me up. People think they aren't racist, but don't understand that standing by and allowing racism does makes one a bigot. If you agree with Paul that we should be allowed to not let people of different races live in certain neighborhoods, attend certain schools or go into certain businesses, then you're a racist. Plain and simple.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 5 years, 1 month ago

That just doesn't make sense. He says that property rights, the sacrosanct nature of which is the whole basis of his (and your) philosophy, should allow them to discriminate, thereby denying someone else's civil rights.

I really don't care if he's "comfortable" with it-- if he advocates for laws (or lack thereof) that allow racists to deny others' their civil rights, then for all practical purposes, he is also racist.

jafs 5 years, 1 month ago

How is it not discriminatory to not allow black people to eat at one's restaurant?

So you think that businesses should be allowed to hire only white people as well?

Aren't there federal laws against exactly that sort of discrimination?

Graczyk 5 years, 1 month ago

You are such a one trick pony, Liberty_One. At least you are consistent.

jafs 5 years, 1 month ago

Your words:

People can't do things to you that are discriminatory.

Not hiring you/allowing you to patronize an establishment because of the color of your skin is discriminatory.

jafs 5 years, 1 month ago

What gives the government the right to prohibit slavery?

It's my plantation and I can run it any way I want.

Liberty275 5 years, 1 month ago

How is it not discriminatory to not allow black people to eat at one's restaurant?

It is discriminatory. If you aren't capable of being discriminatory you aren't capable of surviving. Maybe you are just a backwoods guy, but if you ever lived in a city, you'd discriminate against certain parts of town lest ye be beaten, mugged and shot. Unless you were going after crack. People will go anywhere for crack.

Aren't there federal laws against exactly that sort of discrimination?

The first amendment has been found to protect freedom of association. IOW, you are free to associate with anybody you want and free to not associate with those you don't want.

I know it would be easier if we just dumped that stupid constitution and had a dictator to tell us how to run every part of our lives like good little drones, but unfortunately that isn't the case. Pesky Constitutions and silly Amendments! They are ruining murica!

jafs 5 years, 1 month ago

So you believe it is Constitutional and perfectly ok for businesses to discriminate on the basis of race.

Since the 1960's I believe it's been illegal.

Jaylee 5 years, 1 month ago

"but that doesn't mean you are free to go on their property. "

uuuuhhhhhhhh If there is a sign that says "OPEN" without one next to it that says "No Darks" I would think that yes, that does mean you can go on their property?

tomatogrower 5 years, 1 month ago

I know you aren't that gullible. There are plenty of people who would like to go back to what they view as "the good ole days".

Jaylee 5 years, 1 month ago

Liberty, you actually think if steps were taken in the opposite direction concerning civil rights that open racism wouldn't start seeping out every state's pores?

You have far too much faith in the general population.

gatekeeper 5 years, 1 month ago

If they could, you can be guaranteed that yes, whites only signs would start reappearing. Hell, JoCo people would be in heaven if they could.

Listen to the tea baggers - "I want my country back" cr*p. You think those people wouldn't be in hog heaven if we had separation again.

There is a reason we have these laws. It's because there is still a lot of racism out there. I have a neighbor with mixed grand kids and behind his daughter's back he calls them "little niglets". There are still plenty of A holes that treat their own blood differently because they aren't totally white.

jayhawklawrence 5 years, 1 month ago

Having grown up during the 60's and remembering the King marches and the fire hoses and the race riots I think I understand what Pitts is writing about.

How far would you stick your neck out there to help those who are being treated unjustly whether they are Blacks or Jews or Catholics or Asians. When you are in the privileged majority with everything to lose, most people will say or do nothing. This is why we have to study the Holocaust so much and be reminded of how these things tend to repeat themselves and hope it never happens again.

We know one thing about Mr. Rand Paul. He is very respectful of private property. I believe that was the main justification for maintaining the slavery system in the South. They were owned by somebody and you had to respect that.

beatrice 5 years, 1 month ago

Yep, most of the same people saying Pitts is to blame for pointing out Paul's statements. Kill the messenger, once again, kill the messenger.

Some people would prefer we ignore the comments of people like Paul, thus allowing individuals into positions of power where their views can influence society. Others of us, however, want to shine the light brightly on such comments. Thanks for another excellent column Pitts.

LibertyOne, you appear to be missing the point that views of "private business" can't be established fairly in a racist society. Were there no racism in our society, then perhaps your utopian libertarian view might hold up, but that isn't the case. Since we do live in a society in which racism is still at play, then your ideal will not hold up equally but would and has proven to be discriminatory in practice. Sorry, but your ideal once again is proven to be possible only in a fantasy land.

However, I hope the libertarians do well in coming elections, drawing many, many votes away from otherwise conservative Republicans.

Jaylee 5 years, 1 month ago

Libertarian : Republican as Green : Democrat

Sadly, Libertarians would win against Greens.

Jaylee 5 years, 1 month ago

Twisted is how one could ignore mounting evidence and stand by a public racist.

jafs 5 years, 1 month ago

There are plenty of people who would gladly patronize such businesses without a second thought.

White supremacist groups and the like are actually on the rise in this country.

jafs 5 years, 1 month ago

I'm not sure why you think these would change anything.

In areas where most are racist, most of one's neighbors wouldn't care at all.

sickofdummies 5 years, 1 month ago

Really? white supremacist groups are on the rise? I hadn't heard that. If so, I think that is terrible. However, I do wonder if you are one of those people who spout hyperbole without evidence to back up their claims. Really, just curious becuase there seems to be a lot of that going around. I like to validate my sources. Do you have any supporting evidence to this? I'd like to be informed.

jafs 5 years, 1 month ago

Check with the Southern Poverty and Law Center for statistics.

Jay Keffer 5 years, 1 month ago

Here is a current case that is very much 'on point'. The women who is suing Hooters for placing her on leave because her weight was excessive given what she was hired to do. Do we really want government in these kinds of issues?

Hooters business model is based on, well you know, svelt women that are 'proportional'. That's what it is, not defending it either way, but it is their model and it works. Imagine if they hired homely, overweight women to waitress - they would be out of business in a month.

This woman has no right to that job - it is up to the employer to decide. Should government be telling a business, or an invidual who they can associate with?

Let the market punish those that make bad choices. Government should stay out of private property issues.

Paul was not wrong to have a technical discussion on the law - he is free to do that. He is also clearly not a racist, but we have become so PC that if anyone even holds a discussion on the merits of a law that touches any kind of nerve, they get a label.


gatekeeper 5 years, 1 month ago

If the govt is to stay out of private property issues, then there is no regulation on how badly you can get screwed when buying property. There is no law saying slavery is illegal. There are no laws saying I can't beat my children within inches of their lives - they're my property.

I don't really think you're racist LIberty. You're just dumb.

tomatogrower 5 years, 1 month ago

Do you honestly think that institutional racism would have ended without the government's intervention? Obviously you weren't alive back then, and since, on another comment, you don't think social studies should be taught in school, you must have little knowledge of history. I was alive then, and if the government had not forced integration, it would have never happened, and there are still people out there who would go back to segregation in a minute. Libertarians have a nice idealized view of the world, but so did Karl Marx. Reality is a lot different.

Graczyk 5 years, 1 month ago

The free market correction that Liberty_One advocates has consistently failed. The evidence is there, across geography and time, but he won't recognize it because he's trapped in one paradigm. (Aren't we all though?)

Liberty275 5 years, 1 month ago

Do you honestly think that institutional racism would have ended without the government's intervention?

It hasn't ended with government intervention. Go watch TV. Pay attention to the number of each race you see and compare that to the general population. During the commercials, see if you can guess who the target audience is.

Have a look at the senate. Is it not racism institutionalized by voters in all 50 states?

Libertarians have a nice idealized view of the world

We also have our eyes open to the real world. We see your celebration of half-measures and failures and wonder why you settle for so little.

tomatogrower 5 years, 1 month ago

Most of these were state laws, and, yes, the federal government through the Supreme Court ruled "separate, but equal" was ok for a long time, but when people who supported Civil Rights finally came into the federal government things changed. How many states fought those changes? It took troops to convince more than one.
It also took the hard work of the non government civil rights workers, but all the bus boycotts, and lunchroom sit ins would have taken much longer. Many Jim Crow laws would still exit, if the federal government hadn't dictated their end, and if the so called "activist" Supreme Court had not finally extended constitutional rights to everyone. Some people are still angry about that, and would like to "take back their country".

gatekeeper 5 years, 1 month ago

I watched the full interview and Rand is a moron. He supports "part" of the civil rights act. Only part.

Mike Ford 5 years, 1 month ago

There's a whole other wrinkle to this. State's Rights people of which my ex-grandfather is want the law manipulated to their wishes. They don't want the federal government to integrate places, but they want the power of the federal government to keep the people they don't like out. They want jurisdiction over Indian tribes in their jurisdiction and they still to this day don't acknowledge tribes as the same equal sovereign dependants as states as laid out in the commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution. I found this out speaking to a Brownback staffer in D.C. concerning tribal issues the other day. Message to these people: you can't accuse the peoples you victimized of living in the past when you want the 1950's or the 1850's back. You can't have it both ways.

Jaylee 5 years, 1 month ago

I wish everyone would just FORGET WHERE WE ALL COME FROM and start today knowing that we are all the same. GEEEEEEEEEEEEZ already with the this percent of you represents what's left of the people who at this point in history seriously muffed up these people, of whom I have this percent in my bloodeeblahdeeeeeblooooooooood I wish everyone would just treat each other well.

gatekeeper 5 years, 1 month ago

I believe it was George Carlin that once said we all need to scr*w until we're just gray.

jayhawklawrence 5 years, 1 month ago

Liberty One:

"Not even close. Just more evidence that no one can use anything Paul has actually said to claim he's a racist, but that one has to infer it using some twisted comparison. "

I guess we will have to agree to disagree.

I stand by my comment.

We don't need another nut in politics. There are too many already.

yankeevet 5 years, 1 month ago

Tired of hearing this "African American"; if he is so unhappy; pack his bags; and go back to where he came from.............we just get tired of the same ole crap.........and yes; i am speaking out..........

beatrice 5 years, 1 month ago

Tom: "please don't confuse opposition to Obama/Pelosi/Reid policy with an increase in white supremacist groups."

Riiiiight. The rise in white supremacist groups t is just a coincidence, despite you own stated belief / fear that "whites have no power now." Certainly you can't be this naive.

yankeevet (invictus?), go back where he came from? You can't be serious. Do you mean Hawaii?

yankeevet 5 years, 1 month ago

yes; hawaii; africa; alabama; dont really care........

Jaylee 5 years, 1 month ago

Considering we're in KS, he in Florida, I can't help but feel like LJW would still post his articles and your wishing tree has no chance of fruiting here.

independant1 5 years, 1 month ago

Another race baiting rant by Pitts, I feel so not intellectually stimulated, wonderfull, optimistic, uplifted.

It is a brute world out there but not in this here and now.

Mike Ford 5 years, 1 month ago

wow like bugs to light, the racists react. how predictbale

independant1 5 years, 1 month ago

You got to sorter give and take in this old world. (Will Rogers, that okie caucasion cherokee dude, a Heinz57 american like me)

sickofdummies 5 years, 1 month ago

First, I am not educated on Paul. He may be racist, he may not, I dont know, so am not making a statement. (I always feel I must state my case so as not to get attacked here).

My biggest problem with this, and many other liberal debates is the stereotyping that is going on. I am a republican. I am not a racist. I am a republican because I believe in small government, am opposed to Obama because of his political agenda. ...NOT the color of his skin.

Although I consider myself caucasian, I feel very certain that I have a wide variety of ancestry going on in my dna, as do most americans in this time. But I am so tired of everyone making the assumption that everyone who is opposed to Obama MUST be a racist. I honestly dont care for him based on his political views. Guess what, I also dont like Gore, Kerry, and many other democrats, just like there are some republicans that I dont care for.

I am so opposed to racism, that I would NEVER vote for someone or not vote for someone based on the color of their skin. Can all democrats honestly state that? I truly believe that everyone should be considered on their merit, ethics, integrity, honesty, intelligence. But isn't one of the biggest examples of racism the fact that so many people stereotype a certain population? For example, ...Someone is black, so they must be a criminal. Someone is asian, they must be really good at math. SERIOUSLY!!! If you honestly are opposed to racism, then WALK THE WALK!!!!!!!! Quit stereotyping all white people, or all republicans. Practice what you preach, and quit judging me based on the color of MY skin!

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 5 years, 1 month ago

If Rand Paul could call for a re-do of civil rights laws (which he could as a US senator,) it would be permissible for a restaurant or hotel (and many other public establishments) to put out a sign saying "No Coloreds Allowed." Enforcement could presumably come from law enforcement personnel if called upon.

Do you agree with him?

sickofdummies 5 years, 1 month ago

I began with a statement that I am not eduacated on Paul, so I will not speak on or for him. It seems your reply is hypothetical. Has Paul actually called for a repeal of civil rights laws? If he has, then of course, I do not agree with him. As I stated, I believe that color of skin should play no role in determining someones worth. Did I not make myself clear enough?

And just as diconcerting, is that you seem to be saying what Paul "could" do, not what he "has" done. Are you creating a faux situation so that you have grounds to call him racist? This doesn't seem logical. Now, that being said, I've already said that I'm not fully educated on the man. If he has actually attempted to repeal civil rights laws, then I apologize to you, and my answer stays the same. I do not agree.

gatekeeper 5 years, 1 month ago

But do you agree with Paul that it is ok for a business owner or property owner to discriminate based on race? Paul has bluntly said he doesn't think the govt should have any say in whether a business bans someone because of their race. He's also said that we should be allowed to not sell our property to someone because of their race (so neighborhoods can keep people of color out). He also disagrees with the ADA and doesn't think that any private institutions should have to allow disabled the right to work or even come to their business.

This article is about Paul and his recent statements against parts of the Civil Rights Act and the ADA. You should listen to his statements before speaking about them.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 5 years, 1 month ago

" so I will not speak on or for him."

I didn't ask you to speak for him. I merely asked if you agreed with him.

"Has Paul actually called for a repeal of civil rights laws?"

Sort of-- he has said that he disagrees with civil rights laws that prohibit privately owned public accommodations (hotels, restaurants, etc.) from posting "No Coloreds Allowed" signs, or at least practicing racial segregation.

"If he has actually attempted to repeal civil rights laws, then I apologize to you, and my answer stays the same. I do not agree."

If you disagree with him, and you live in Kentucky, I hope you don't vote for him and potentially give him the opportunity to repeal major components of civil rights legislation.

sickofdummies 5 years, 1 month ago

Again....these things being said, I do not agree with racism of any sort, especially when civil rights are violated. Please remember that in my initial statement, I said that my comment was not about Paul, but more about the stereotyping of republicans based on the comments of one or a few.

That was the basis of my comment, and I felt that I made it clear that I was not debating the actions of Paul. My entire point seems to be missed that stereotyping of any sort is unfair and ridiculous, and becomes a form of racism or bias. It is not unfair only for minorities, it is unfair for anyone. There are many repubicans who detest racism, but still are being stereotyped by liberals. My entire point was that people should think before they speak, and practice what they preach. That is how I try to live my life, and find it unacceptable when others dont.

monkeyspunk 5 years, 1 month ago

He didn't stereotype all Republicans, perhaps you should read the actual piece.

sickofdummies 5 years, 1 month ago

Let me point out sentence number 3 for you. Talk a little look-see and see if that doesn't sayd that social conservatives have never been on the side of African americans. Clearly, I'm not the one who has problems reading, or reading comprehension.

sickofdummies 5 years, 1 month ago

By the way...by some of your logic...You call me a racist, I say I'm not, and you think that proves that I am? What if I said I am? Then I still am, right?

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 5 years, 1 month ago

"Their 'Flippant' usage of their 'Cliche' R word "

I didn't realize you were so sensitive about that BP. I'll never think or talk of you as a Republican again.

And that's really unfair that Obama expects you to clean up that oil leak of yours.

Hasn't he read the contract?

Jaylee 5 years, 1 month ago

barry, you are creepy sometimes. You cross some sort of line from whatever you normally are and go there.

Asking someone about software on their computer is heebie jeebie land unless you installed it for him or sold it to him or something.

Jay Keffer 5 years, 1 month ago

I love how the left slaps on labels if someone with a sharp mind dares to muse about some of the laws we had on the books and if they went beyond the original intent.

Rand Paul has said nothing that could be considered racist by any thinking person that can follow a thought process all the way through. None of his other comments or actions can be construed as racist and there is no other hint of him thinking/acting/believing that we are not all equal.

You who call him racist do not have a monopoly on that term, and calling him such does not make it so. It just makes it your poorly reasoned slur.

Lawmakers should be graded on how many laws they repeal and how much they shrink government, not how many laws they propose. The nanny state is out of hand and needs to stop.

Let people associate as they wish, per the intent of the founding fathers. And watch what happens to any business that discriminates. They won't survive. If they happen to, then you have your least trustworthy people in one spot where they can inbreed all they like. Darwin will take care of them - just give it some time.

Poof! Fixed it for ya.

Jaylee 5 years, 1 month ago

Here's a way to follow the thought process through, if you haven't already:

Maybe people are upset at the mere second guess of such seemingly great legislation?

Or maybe because when Paul had legitimate arguments presented concerning the implications of reversing such law, he simply chose to move forward using slithery wording to avoid responding to potential situations of which people spoke?

It's pretty easy to see how this COULD be used by private owners to the detriment of many categories of individual. Having family history from SoCal and Deep Appalacia (thus visited those areas all throughout my life), there is no doubt in my head any amendment to laws protecting civil rights would make huge impacts on those areas.

Cait McKnelly 5 years, 1 month ago

"The nanny state is out of hand and needs to stop" Tell that to all of the states in the Union, especially Nebraska, Utah and Oklahoma, who have passed "nanny state" anti-abortion laws that treat women little better than breeding cattle. I am especially appalled by the law in OK that permits doctors to outright lie about fetal anomalies a pregnancy may have, to their patients to prevent them from aborting and do so without impunity. This means that no longer can a doctor caring for a pregnant woman in that state be trusted nor is any pregnancy in that state safe.

independant1 5 years, 1 month ago

Like kinds of poeple tend to gather in groups. Does that need fixing?

Richard Heckler 5 years, 1 month ago

Simple solution to this one mess....

Don't vote Rand Paul!

devobrun 5 years, 1 month ago

tange, have you ever noticed that racism is often paired with other word modifiers? private racism, institutional racism, cultural racism, and many others are efforts to characterize racism. Why? Because racism is ill-defined. Racism is defined by those who feel discriminated against. It isn't defined universally by those who are racist and those against whom racism is promulgated.

No, racism is a singularly defined attribute of the offended. Does anybody stand up and defend racism? Or defend themselves against racism? No. If someone must stand up and declare that they aren't racist, then they are immediately laughed at. It is intellectual quick sand. The oppressed immediately win. No contest. If you feel oppressed, then you are. If you are subjected to discrimination, you are oppressed and the offenders are racist. Once labeled racist, the offender is toast. Has no say and might as well give up.

I am an Engineer-American. I am not consulted for my opinion on many things that relate to feelings. My feelings are dismissed by the non-engineers. I am oppressed. You artists, mothers, medical professionals all discriminate against me.
See how easy it is? I could go Leonard Pitts on you and start railing against Cher, or Mother Theresa, or Sting......but we know that they are all racist against engineers don't we?

Corey Williams 5 years, 1 month ago

As a machinist for 14 years, I am definitely prejudiced against engineers. What works on paper doesn't necessarily work in real life. Your post does neither.

How are "...Cher, or Mother Theresa, or Sting...racist against engineers"?

jafs 5 years, 1 month ago

If you are subjected to discrimination, you are oppressed.

As you have clearly demonstrated, you have little to no regard for feelings, so why would anyone consult you about them?

sickofdummies 5 years, 1 month ago

Amen to you merrill. Simple solution. Take our your anger at the polls.

Jay Keffer 5 years, 1 month ago

You are comparing apples and hamburgers. The protection of a life seems a bit more important, but as we all know, abortion is legal. The nanny state determining what you should eat/drink, who you can assoicate with, how to run your business and forcing you to buy a consumer product is the issue at hand. And it is only going to get worse.

Jaylee 5 years, 1 month ago

I think we're trying to make sure that if someone wants to buy an apple or hamburger, they can feel free to do so, without fear of being turned down because of their race or skin color, or worse situations that seem to happen as a result.

jayhawklawrence 5 years, 1 month ago

Sick of dummies made a well thought out comment I think, but it reminded me of a couple of guys I met the other day who started out saying they were not rascist at all and then they started talking like rascists because their personal experiences were so limited that all they know is from other white guys.

Rascism is embedded in our culture and it will take a long time to get rid of it. Like smoking, we have to replace these negative habits with good habits. Someday, we won't even remember what it was.

I am going to make a comment that I think is similar.

Why don't Republicans speak out against the idiots who have hijacked the Republican Party and its agenda?

Today, you have a bunch of hate mongers representing your party. Doesn't that bother you?

The average American, both Republicans and Democrats, are nothing like these people who are supposed to represent us. They are just making money by taking advantage of us.

Let's get rid of all of them, but's why align ourselves with even worse people. That is what the Palinized Tea Party would give us. Worse of everything.

sickofdummies 5 years, 1 month ago

Are the leaders of the democratic party great examples of Americans? I think not. There is nastiness all around in politics. Its the nature of it. If you read anything I said, you'll know that I've said repeatedly that I dont ever agree with judging someone by their ethinicity or color of their skin. Its not just anti-American, its anti-human. But....aren't many of the leaders of the democratic party also racists??? Didn't thousands of people vote for Obama simply because he's multiracial? Is that not racist?? I'm very against that, too, and the color of Obama's skin seems to be all he has going for him. If he were a republican, and shared my political beliefs, I would have voted for him in a heartbeat. But, I think that his beliefs are not good for America. So, does it bother me that leaders of my party are racists? Yes it does. Does it bother you that leaders of your party are racists, too?

jafs 5 years, 1 month ago

I doubt that many people voted for Obama simply because of his color.

Most voted for him because they agreed with his campaign rhetoric.

Jaylee 5 years, 1 month ago

"“Our” meaning African-American people."

Before I even read on, I wanna wake Pitts up from the illusion that minorities are alone in their sentiment concerning the foul nature of racism.

I understand that with, no doubt, some direct racism in your past, one might be apprehensive to dissolve biases, hate, fear, what have you. You have to rise above though if you EVER expect ignorant, self-slandering pieces of crap like Rand Paul to rise above.

Please listen to this one white man, as I feel you would define me, telling you I, as well as others, care.

I felt you were transparent in pointing out your "they" and did not feel you lumped me into that, but to have said that your "we" only includes African-American people implies you feel you are alone in the pain racism brings.

It's a little annoying to hear a person cry racism, then classify and stratify themselves from others who would think and say the same of the situation, but do not carry the pigmentation necessary in your eyes to claim offense.

Jaylee 5 years, 1 month ago

Considering we're discussing this issue, I wouldn't think it necessary to run down and post every vote he's ever participated in.

Rand Paul listens to people tell him it is a violation of civil rights and he says "who gives a flip!"

He doesn't care if others are hurt as long as he can push his ideals, and he wouldn't care if his ideals became law and all those people hurt even worse.

In my book, that makes you arrogant. When worries specifically concern matters of race (and with good reason), in my book, ignoring those who would suffer makes you a racist.

Nothing premature or subjective about my saying the man is skewed. I read / watched the interview. He is not and will never be viewed by me as reasonable, compassionate, empathetic, or open-minded (especially not racist).

BTW, I was complaining about Pitts in that post, if you wanted to acknowledge the content of the post to which you replied.

It was complaining about blacks and other minorities who act like no white man either could be compassionate toward them or have felt any racism inflicted upon them in their life (which to me means so much more than anything all our ancestors did to each other).

Wishing we could all just ACT a little more equal for a start.

independant1 5 years, 1 month ago

Is Pitts smarter than the next, no. The more incendiary his ideas/writing the more money he makes. That's the game.

Paul is not an extremist, Pitts is an extremist.

For one, I prefer to read the political/social prognisticators that can balance optimism with pessimism. Sarcasm and humor injected into the diatribe only makes it more stimulating.

A fanatic is always the fellow that is on the opposite side. (Will Rogers)

Corey Williams 5 years, 1 month ago

A fanatic is always the fellow that is on the opposite side. (Will "Buck" Rogers)

"Paul is not an extremist, Pitts is an extremist."

yourworstnightmare 5 years, 1 month ago

Black americans tend to show the same political distributions as America as a whole. Many are liberals, many are moderates, and many are conservatives.

A conservative message would play well with many black americans.

The conservative right and the GOP just can't help themselves, though. They just can't help but do and say things about race that alienate most black americans.

independant1 5 years, 1 month ago

What about blacks who cherish liberty and limited government and joined in the tea party movement, or blacks who are members of organizations such as the Lincoln Institute, Frederick Douglass Foundation and Project 21? They've been maligned as Oreos, Uncle Toms and traitors to their race. To make such a charge borders on stupidity, possibly racism. After all, when President Reagan disagreed with Tip O'Neill, did either charge the other with being a traitor to his race? Then why is it deemed traitorous when one black disagrees with another, unless you think that all blacks must think alike?

I hope it's misunderstanding, rather than contempt, that explains black hostility toward the principles of liberty. (Walter Williams, Economist, American, Intellectual)

An economist is a man that can tell you anything. His guess is liable to be as good as anybody else’s, too. (Will Rogers 23/32 caucasion, 9/32 cherokee)

yourworstnightmare 5 years, 1 month ago

Gilligan, you prove my point.

I wish I had a skipper hat so I could whack you across the back of the head with it.

The GOP could really cash in on black conservative support if they could just stop saying and doing things about race that alienate blacks, whether, conservative, moderate, or liberal.

They cannot do this, however. The GOP and consrvatives will continue to have minimal black support because of the things they do and say about race that alienate blacks.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.