Tea Party candidate wins US Senate Nomination

[JakRussll]

Whether you agree or disagree with the Tea Party movement, their message is changing the political landscape this year.

Rand Paul Wins Republican Senate Nomination in Kentucky

Rand Paul, one of the early leaders of the Tea Party
movement, won the Republican nomination for Senate in
Kentucky on Tuesday night, delivering a powerful blow to the
party's establishment and offering the clearest evidence yet
of the strength of the anti-government sentiment simmering at
the grass-roots level.

Mr. Paul, the son of Representative Ron Paul of Texas, easily
defeated Trey Grayson, the secretary of state from Kentucky.
Voters turned against Mr. Grayson even though he had the
support of the state's best-known political leader - Mitch
McConnell, the Senate Republican leader.

[tarheel]

I am hopeful that many of those who have been on the sidelines, waiting to see if the Tea Party was for real, will now join in. We just might be able to take back our country from incumbents, who don't listen to us, and entrenched bureaucrats.

[curious]

Remember November!!!!!!!! It has started!!!!!! Never rest!

[manyoublah]

Did you see his (Rand Paul's) interview today.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-3O2rBz9gwo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VqAAfSfap5w

[The_Truth_is]

I have searched Fox news website for news about George Rekers, and Rand Paul interview on civil rights and I can't find any. I don't want to hear the spin, Fox will cover this fair and balanced.
Any suggestions?

[The_Truth_is]

Tea Party fav Scott Brown, just voted with the Dems to allow cloture on the FinReg bill. There's still work to be done post-cloture. I hope they get this right.

[manyoublah]

Rand Paul may have just help the Dems for this November with his stand on saying that the government may have over stepped its boundaries by telling private buisnesses who they can serve. This is troubling.

[manyoublah]

Will this hurt the Tea Party on the national level? I haven't heard any Tea Party people distance themselves from his comments.

[tarheel]

Rand made a rookie mistake. The problem is that the MSM will put up headlines and stories which do not fairly reflect what he was trying to say. They will extrapolate and then Rand will be constantly having to offer complex explanations which nobody will listen to. It won't be fair to him, but that's politics. It will hurt the Tea Party, as the MSM and Democrats will be all over it saying "look at these kooks, they want to repeal Civil Rights laws."

[tonigking]

Seems to me the MSM and Dems want to repeal the Bill of Rights !

[manyoublah]

I think Rand could've helped himself by clarifying that the sit-ins were justified. I do understand his point to some degree though. If businesses want to put up signs that states they will not serve Blacks, those businesses will be hurt because some people (Black, White, Hispanic etc.) will avoid them and it would bad for their business. I wonder where he thinks we would be today if this particular part of the Civil Rights Act was not passed and private businesses could still choose not to serve Blacks? I also wonder if he made a mistake (then correct it). Does he think this part of the Civil Rights Act has harmed any buisnesses? If not, then what's the issue.

[manyoublah]

Check out this article from the Wall Street Journal. "Gotcha journalism" or Rand Paul being Rand Paul? There's seems to be a pattern here.

Rand Paul on the Fair Housing Act

Mr. Paul wrote a letter to the Bowling Green, Ky., Daily News dated May 30, 2002, in response to an editorial on the Federal Fair Housing Act.
Distinction blurred between private, public property

A recent Daily News editorial supported the Federal Fair Housing Act. At first glance, who could object to preventing discrimination in housing?
Most citizens would agree that it is wrong to deny taxpayer-financed, "public" housing to anyone based on the color of their skin or the number of children in the household.

But the Daily News ignores, as does the Fair Housing Act, the distinction between private and public property. Should it be prohibited for public, taxpayer-financed institutions such as schools to reject someone based on an individual's beliefs or attributes? Most certainly. Should it be prohibited for private entities such as a church, bed and breakfast or retirement neighborhood that doesn't want noisy children? Absolutely not.

Decisions concerning private property and associations should in a free society be unhindered. As a consequence, some associations will discriminate.

Alcoholics Anonymous may only accept alcoholics; Madison Avenue advertisers may choose only the young and slender; Boy Scouts may wish to exclude sex offenders; Christian churches may wish to exclude atheists from the clergy.

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.
It is unenlightened and ill-informed to promote discrimination against individuals based on the color of their skin.

It is likewise unwise to forget the distinction between public (taxpayer-financed) and private entities. A society that forgets this distinction will ultimately lose the freedoms that have evolved and historically been attached to private ownership.

Rand Paul
Bowling Green
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704226004575262524028225304.html?m od=WSJ_WSJ_US_News_6

[manyoublah]

Rand Paul's remarks (on MSNBC) has lead Kentucky Legislature to pass Civil Rights legislation.