Tag Archives: Republican

Wildlife habitat …Living with or taking over


ELkOne day in 2015 while I was minding my own business, I received an email from the fish and wildlife department. I signed up to get emails from them but not out of malice or some secret plan to track their actions but some of the emails gave me chills sadness and great disappointment… and that was my first reaction then it made me remember the elk kill that happened in 12/11; I was reading local online news when I saw an article about an elk kill that was going to happen the following Monday.

It went on to say that there was a golf course built in the area and after two years the course was suffering from damage so a request for “containment” was obviously put in and approved. This story just gets worse as the silly and ugly of it all becomes known and the obnoxious takes over. The article stated about 30 Elk encroached upon the owners land of this golf course and that a schedule of Elk Kills would start … again, on Monday. I am becoming more upset when reading taking note of the time it was announced and decided it was time to call. The contact person was great but he said that there were only about three making life miserable for the golf Course owner. The dept. had arranged a kill with the Owners of the golf course but between you and me, the kill did not sound kosher.

I cannont say the kill was not announced but after some calls the community and the area’s tribes seemed to have been left out and like many other developments, this golf course was built in wildlife habitat.endangeredWhales

I am not against sport fishing or hunting but this is not the definition of it…more like legalized poaching, which is wrong on so many levels.  My dad our family, hunted and fished, but in the good way.  Anyway, I decided to put the original article and my entry out into the airwaves to see what would happen. Thank goodness some in the community heard about the upcoming kill, demanded the kill be stopped. The area’s tribe stated they did not know about the kill, they also stated some of the land where the kills would take place was on sacred land, which made me relax because unless or until a mutual agreement is made the Elk would likely be safe. If they needed the meat, far be it from me to obstruct as long as the tribe and that area’s food banks are filled for the local communities. I cannot say that was on their minds though as an employee stated, “If they had just kept it quiet the commotion would be less.” Fortunately, they delayed the Elk kill.

Unfortunately, in a different part of the Pacific NW, not only are they hiring to help with elk kills they have a wait list of volunteers and paid helpers to “round” up the elk, which made me sick. You might be wondering why be sick, well, because not too long ago Elk were reduced to questionable numbers and five years later WA State decides to thin them out again. While there could be a number of responses the answer that best fits would be that developers are eyeing the land and the offer might be tough to reject.outofharmswaywolves

My email inquiry is below; I did call as well and was asked to email…sorry

Hello:

I just had to respond to an email, which I guess I subscribed to on a regular basis. First, I want to state that I have nothing against hunting but I really do not understand why these elk kills not hunts are put on if the elk are truly not harming anyone. It would be great If someone could explain to the public who decides the kills are needed, why, how many have to die and what could be done other than the every 5yrplan or decide based on the amount. I have to ask because  isn’t it important that the available wildlife habitat seems to be shrinking. At one point, the number of elk was very low and an increase of building roads and or homes in wildlife land. I am not the only Washington resident that misunderstands, and some object to the kills period.  I am no expert but who is invading whom. I received an email looking for volunteers, that included the following:  “The department’s management plan calls for reducing the herd size to bring the number of animals into balance with available habitat,” Junker said.  I said, this seems like a “poaching” made legal and bringing the number in balance with the available habitat is only as big as the next golf course or family center or housing development. I just do not understand who gets the meat, hopefully to ALL Native American Tribes … who, should be the “hunters” by the way or the areas food banks but the whole “Volunteers” needed to facilitate access for elk hunts” sounds the opposite of what hunting is all about.

orca whales facing high levels of pollution and endangerment

Their response:

Thank you for contacting the Department of Fish and Wildlife. I am forwarding your e-mail to our Wildlife Management Program, so they can address your concerns.

If you have, any questions please feel free to contact us at 360-902-2464 or email us at licensing@dfw.wa.gov.

N.

Thank you for contacting the Department of Fish and Wildlife. I am forwarding your e-mail to our Wildlife Management Program, so they can address your concerns.

If you have, any questions please feel free to contact us at 360-902-2464 or email us at licensing@dfw.wa.gov.

N.

Not much information given

Like I said, I have nothing against hunting and fishing, but what we have here is nothing close and sounds like legal poaching on wildlife that already is dealing with humans that have decided to spread out at whatever cost is just wrong.  If that was not enough, let us talk about the Puget Sound’s Orca. I know even less about orcas scientifically, but I did grow up hearing the story of Namu’s capture. Ted Griffith, the so-called trainer has stories written about him that are not good. Consequently, I have a lot opinions thoughts and feelings about Whales in general.  I feel that our Navy should get a cease and desist letter ordering all the sonar tests stop until they find out if this is indeed affecting our Whales or at least tell the public what the sonars are being used for or against. I also want to know why there are less Orca’s, why has the state sided with whale watchers and why are our grey whales washing up on our beaches. There should not be whales in captivity. The organized elk kills, taking whales off the endangered list are all beyond sad but to hear that Wyoming has planned a massive wolf kill has us all gasping … Why? Because there is no announcement no explanation and leaves some of us wondering what new development is about to shrink wildlife habitat even more.

Hey, It’s now 2019  Please call write and email your states Fishing & Wildlife dept. and Ask Questions!

~ Nativegrl77

African Americans 15th Amendment and SCOTUS


www.crf-usa.org

Following the Civil War, Radical Republicans in Congress introduced a series of laws and constitutional amendments to try to secure civil and political rights for black people. This wing of the Republican Party was called “radical” because of its strong stance on these and other issues. The right that provoked the greatest controversy, especially in the North, concerned black male suffrage: the right of the black man to vote.

bhm15thAmendmentPgsm

In 1867, Congress passed a law requiring the former Confederate states to include black male suffrage in their new state constitutions. Ironically, even though African American men began voting in the South after 1867, the majority of Northern states continued to deny them this basic right.

In the North, the Republican’s once-huge voter majority over the Democratic Party was declining. Radical Republican leaders feared that they might lose control of Congress to the Democrats.

One solution to this problem called for including the black man’s vote in all Northern states. Republicans assumed the new black voters would vote Republican just as their brothers were doing in the South. By increasing its voters in the North and South, the Republican Party could then maintain its stronghold in Congress.

The Republicans, however, faced an incredible dilemma. The idea of blacks voting was not popular in the North. In fact, several Northern states had recently voted against black male suffrage.

In May 1868, the Republicans held their presidential nominating convention in Chicago and chose Ulysses S. Grant as their candidate. The Republicans agreed that African-American male suffrage continued to be a requirement for the Southern states, but decided that the Northern states should settle this issue for themselves.

Grant was victorious in the election of 1868, but this popular general won by a surprisingly slim margin. It was clear to Republican leaders that if they were to remain in power, their party needed the votes of black men in the North.

The 15th Amendment

When the new year began in 1869, the Republicans were ready to introduce a constitutional amendment guaranteeing the black man’s right to vote. For two months, Congress considered the proposed amendment. Several versions of the amendment were submitted, debated, rejected and then reconsidered in both the House and Senate.

Finally, at the end of February 1869, Congress approved a compromise amendment that did not even specifically mention the black man:

Section 1: The right of citizens of the United States vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

Section 2: The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Once approved by the required two-thirds majorities in the House and Senate, the 15th Amendment had to be ratified by 28, or three-fourths, of the states. Due to the reconstruction laws, black male suffrage already existed in 11 Southern states. Since almost all of these states were controlled by Republican reconstruction governments, they could be counted on to ratify the 15th Amendment. Supporters of the 15th Amendment needed only 17 of the remaining 26 Northern and Western states in order to succeed. At this time, just nine of these states allowed the black man to vote. The struggle for and against ratification hung on what blacks and other political interests would do.

The Blacks

Only days after General Lee surrendered at Appomattox in April, 1865, black abolitionist Frederick Douglass spoke before the Massachusetts Anti-Slavery Society. In his speech, Douglass explained why the black man wanted the right to vote “in every state of the Union”:

It is said that we are ignorant; admit it. But if we know enough to be hung, we know enough to vote. If the Negro knows enough to pay taxes to support government, he knows enough to vote; taxation and representation should go together. If he knows enough to shoulder a musket and fight for the flag for the government, he knows enough to vote ….What I ask for the Negro is not benevolence, not pity, not sympathy, but simply justice.

While Congress debated the 15th Amendment early in 1869, 150 black men from 17 states assembled for a convention in Washington, D.C. This was the first national meeting of black Americans in the history of the United States. Frederick Douglass was elected president of the convention.

The delegates praised the Republicans in Congress for passing the reconstruction laws and congratulated General Grant on his election to the White House. They also pledged their continued support of the Republican Party.

Those attending the convention also spent time meeting with members of Congress, encouraging them to pass a strong amendment guaranteeing black male suffrage nationwide. When the meeting adjourned, the delegates were confident that a new era of democracy for the black man was about to begin.

bhm15thamendmentcelebrationsm
A poster celebrates the passage of the 15th Amendment. (Wikimedia Commons)

The Democrats

The Democrats realized they were fighting for political survival. They feared ratification of the 15th Amendment would automatically create some 170,000 loyal black Republican voters in the North and West.

In debates over the amendment, Democrats argued against the ratification by claiming that the 15th Amendment restricted the states’ rights to run their own elections. The Democrats also charged the Republicans with breaking their promise of allowing the states, outside the South, to decide for themselves whether to grant black male suffrage. Democrat leaders cited the low level of literacy in the black population and they predicted black voters would be easily swayed by false promises and outright bribery.

Victory, Then Tragedy

Despite Democratic opposition, the Republicans steadily won ratification victories throughout 1869. Ironically, it was a Southern state, Georgia that clinched the ratification of the 15th Amendment on February 2, 1870.

On March 30, President Grant officially proclaimed the 15th Amendment as part of the Constitution. Washington and many other American cities celebrated. More than 10,000 blacks paraded through Baltimore. In a speech on May 5, 1870, Frederick Douglass rejoiced. “What a country — fortunate in its institutions, in its 15th Amendment, in its future.”

The jubilation over victory did not last long. While Republicans acquired loyal black voters in the North, the South was an entirely different matter. The Ku Klux Klan and other violent racist groups intimidated black men who tried to vote, or who had voted, by burning their homes, churches and schools, even by resorting to murder.

When the election for president in 1876 ended with a dispute over electoral votes, the Republicans made a deal with the Southern Democrats. First, the Southerners agreed to support Republican candidate Rutherford B. Hayes for president. In turn, the Republicans promised to withdraw troops from the South and abandon federal enforcement of black’s rights, including the right to vote.

Within a few years, the Southern state governments required blacks to pay voting taxes, pass literacy tests and endure many other unfair restrictions on their right to vote. In Mississippi, 67 percent of the black adult men were registered to vote in 1867; by 1892 only 4 percent were registered. The political deal to secure Hayes as president rendered the 15th Amendment meaningless. Another 75 years passed before black voting rights were again enforced in the South.

For Discussion and Writing

  1. What was the “Republican dilemma” in 1868?
  2. During the ratification of the 15th Amendment, women’s suffrage leaders were told that it was “the Negro’s hour.” What did this mean? How did Elizabeth Stanton and Susan Anthony respond to this argument? Do you think they did the right thing? Why or why not?

For Further Reading

Douglass, Frederick. Frederick Douglass; selections from his writings, edited, with an introduction, by Philip S. Foner. New York International Press, 1964.

Gillette, William. The Right to Vote: Politics and Passage of the Fifteenth Amendment. Baltimore: The John Hopkins Press, 1965.


A C T I V I T Y


Voting Rights Convention

In this activity, you will have a chance to re create history by going back to the year 1868 to participate in a voting rights convention. You will be assigned to a group that had a particular viewpoint on voting rights in 1868. Your group and four others at the convention will write a voting rights amendment to recommend to Congress. In this way, your class will have the opportunity to improve upon the original 15th Amendment that was passed by Congress early in 1869. For the purposes of this activity, it does not matter what your own sex or race is when you are assigned to one of the convention groups listed below.

Voting Rights Convention Groups: Republicans, Blacks, Abolitionists, Woman Suffragists, Democrats

  1. At random, assign each student to one of the five groups listed above.
  2. You should first re read the section of the article relating to your group (For example, Republicans should read “The Republican Dilemma.”)
  3. Next, discuss with your group what you think your purpose should be at this voting rights convention. For example, is your group in favor of a voting rights amendment? If so, what should it include? Write your purpose on a sheet of paper and have your teacher check it.
  4. Now re read the section titled, “The 15th Amendment.” If you are a member of the “Blacks” or “Abolitionists” also re-read the last section, “Victory, Then Tragedy.”
  5. With the other members of your group, write your own voting rights amendment. Remember to pay attention to the views and purpose of your group at this convention. You can use the wording of the actual 15th Amendment as a guide, but try to change or improve it from your group’s point of view.
  6. All the amendments written at the convention should now be put on the board. Each group with a proposed amendment should explain it to the entire convention. Members of other groups may ask questions or argue against it at this time.
  7. Finally, the convention members should vote on which voting rights amendment to recommend to Congress. However, the rules of the convention require that in order for an amendment to be recommended, two thirds of the convention members must approve it. If none of the proposed amendments receives at least two thirds of the convention votes, the group members should try to negotiate a compromise amendment that will attract the support of the other groups.
  8. After completing this activity, contrast your convention’s amendment with the original 15th Amendment. How are they different? Is the convention amendment better? Why? If the convention amendment had been ratified in 1870, would it have made any difference to black voters, women or other groups in American society?

Return to Black History Month Home Page

Gun Violence Prevention 101 – 2013 still relevant in 2019 reposted


By ThinkProgress War Room 2013

The President’s Sensible Gun Violence Prevention Proposal

The president and vice president today announced a sweeping agenda to stem the epidemic of gun violence that exists in our country. You can find the full text of the plan HERE, but ThinkProgress’ Annie-Rose Strasser breaks down everything you need to know about the president’s plan:

1. Making background checks universal. Obama wants every single gun owner to go through a proper background check, so it can be determined whether they have a criminal history or diagnosed mental illness. He wants Congress to close the gun show loophole that allows people at gun shows, and private buyers of used weapons, to avoid getting checked. He will also, through executive action, urge private sellers to conduct background checks, even if they aren’t mandatory.

2. Improving state reporting of criminals and the mentally ill. While all states are required to report to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) people who should not have access to guns, some states are sluggish about putting the data into the system. Obama will put more money into the hands of the states so that they can improve their reporting systems, and issue stronger guidelines to let states know when they should report people. Obama will also, through Presidential Memorandum, work to make sure agencies are regularly entering data into NICS.

3. Banning assault weapons. This is likely the most difficult battle Obama will undertake. He wants to reinstate the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban, which outlaws military-grade weapons, like the AR-15 used by Newtown gunman Adam Lanza and by Aurora Theater gunman James Holmes. Obama wants Congress to pass the ban, and close some of the loopholes identified in its 1994 iteration.

4. Capping magazine clip capacity at 10 bullets. A military-grade weapon is dangerous, but so are its accessories: Obama proposes banning all extended magazine clips that hold over 10 bullets. Huge magazine clips allow a gunman to fire off hundreds of rounds without having to stop, even once, to reload. The high-capacity magazine ban was also part of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban.

5. Purging armor-piercing bullets. The sale of armor piercing ammunition has been banned for quite some time, but is still legal to posess such bullets. Obama is calling on Congress to outlaw ownership and transfer of these bullets, instead of just the sale. Those who oppose any gun laws try to spin a ban on armor piercing bullets as a ban on deer hunting ammunition, but such ammo has the ability to penetrate bullet-proof vests, and is more colloquially known as “cop killer bullets.”

6. Funding police officers. Obama wants Congress to reverse its course of austerity for public employees by approving $4 billion to fund police enforcement around the country.

7. Strengthening gun tracking. In order to track weapons that are used for crimes, Obama will issue a memorandum mandating that all agencies trace back firearms. This means that any agency in the country must trace guns used in crimes back to their original owners, as a way to help collect data on where criminal weapons are coming from. Obama will also ask Congress to allow law enforcement to do background checks on guns seized during investigations.

8. Supporting research on gun violence. Obama hopes to be able to gather more information on gun violence and misuse of firearms, and use that data to inform the work of law enforcement. He also wants to restart research, which has been long blocked by the National Rifle Association, on how video games, the media, and violence affect violent gun crimes. The Centers for Disease Control will immediately begin these efforts, but Obama also is calling on Congress to add $10 million to the pot of funding for such research.

9. Encouraging mental health providers to get involved. In order to make sure that those with homicidal thoughts are unable to access the weapons with which to kill, Obama seeks to encourage mental health professionals to alert authorities to such people. He will clarify that doing so is not in violation of patient privacy laws. He also wants to dispel the idea that Obamacare prevents doctors from talking to patients about guns.

10. Promoting safe gun ownership. The administration will start a “responsible gun ownership” campaign to encourage gun owners to lock up their firearms. He will also work with the Consumer Product Safety Commission to make sure safes and gun locks on the market are effective. He’s also calling on the justice department to help him come up with new gun safety technology.

11. Funding school counseling. Obama is calling on Congress to fund the positions of 1,000 news school counselors. The funding will come both through the already-existent COPS Hiring Grant, and through a new Comprehensive School Safety program that Congress will need to sign off on. The latter would put #150 million into funding for new counselors and social workers in schools.

12. Encouraging safe, anti-bullying school environments. Over 8,000 schools could receive new funding — $50 million — under Obama’s plan to encourage safer school environments. Obama wants to help at-risk students by creating a “school climate survey” that will collect data on what services students need, and to remedy any problems by putting professionals into schools. The administration will also issue guidelines on school discipline policies.

13. Recognizing the mental health needs of low-income Americans. Medicaid recipients already qualify for some mental health services, but Obama would like to expand that service so that low-income Americans have the same access to professional help as those who have money to pay for it on their own. Obama will issue a directive to heads of state health programs, enforcing “mental health parity” — the idea that mental health should be treated as a priority as important as physical health.

In the coming days and weeks, the president, vice president, and cabinet will take their case outside of the Beltway in order to truly engage the American people in the vital debate.

BOTTOM LINE: Now is the time for Congress to pass common-sense legislation that protects our families from needless gun violence. We are not talking about radical measures but common-sense solutions supported by a majority of the American people, as well as NRA members and gun owners.

Things that happened in 2013 and still cannot be explained ~ insane!

Meet the Republicans who want to impeach Obama over gun safety regulations.

NRA releases “repugnant and cowardly” ad invoking the president’s children.

Rick Perry’s solution to gun violence: pray.

Whole Foods CEO: Obamacare is like “fascism.”

Conservatives and GOP elected officials call for GOP to back off debt limit hostage-taking.

Terrorists linked to Al-Qaeda take Americans hostage in Algeria.

States shower millions in tax breaks on gunmakers

Freddie Stowers ~ Honor and recognition Long Overdue – Black History


NMAAHC -- National Museum of African American History and Culture

Lonnie Bunch, museum director, historian, lecturer, and author, is proud to present A Page from Our American Story, a regular on-line series for Museum supporters. It will showcase individuals and events in the African American experience, placing these stories in the context of a larger story — our American story.

A Page From Our American Story

Grave of Cpl Freddie Stowers
Grave of CPL Freddie Stowers
at Meuse-Argonne American Cemetery
in France.

Freddie Stowers, the grandson of a South Carolina slave, holds a unique spot in America’s pantheon of war heroes — as the only African American awarded the Medal of Honor for service in World War I. Stowers’ story, however, must be told in two parts.

The first part of the story is his act of heroism in 1918; the second part is that it took more than 72 years before Stowers finally received the recognition he was due.

The United States was the last major combatant to enter World War I, the “war to end all wars.” The conflict began in Europe in 1914, but in the U.S., isolationist sentiments were strong resulting in a foreign policy of non-intervention. However, in April 1917, after a German U-boat sank the British ship Lusitania, killing 128 Americans on board, President Woodrow Wilson asked Congress to declare war on Germany. Three months later, on July 3, 1917, American troops landed in France.

Corporal Freddie Stowers came to France as part of the all-black Company C, 371st Regiment, 93rd Division that deployed in September, 1918. His service in France was short but courageous and memorable.

More than 50 years after the Civil War, America’s military was still segregated. The French, however, had no such rules, and Stowers and Company C were sent to the front lines to serve alongside French troops.

On September 28, just days after arriving in France, Stowers’ company was in the midst of an attack on Hill 188, Champagne Marne Sector, France, when enemy forces appeared to be giving up.

According to the War Department, German soldiers emerged from their trenches waving a white flag, arms in the air — military actions that signal surrender. It was a ruse, however. As Americans, including Cpl. Stowers, went to capture the “surrendering” Germans, another wave of the enemy arose and opened fire.

Very quickly, Company C’s lieutenant and non-commissioned officers were killed in the fight. This left the 21-year-old Stowers in command. Without hesitation, he implored his men to advance on the Germans.

Stowers would be mortally shot during the exchange. Wounded and dying, Stowers continued to fight on, inspiring his men to push the enemy back. With Stowers leading the counter-attack, Americans took out an enemy machine gun position and went on to capture Hill 188.

Following the battle, Stowers’ commanding officer nominated him for the Medal of Honor, but the nomination was never processed. The Pentagon said the paperwork was misplaced. Some raise the possibility that the nomination wasn’t misplaced at all, but deliberately lost. They point to the fact that American troops were segregated and suggest that racial bias in the military might be the reason for Stowers’ missing paperwork.

The final part of Freddie Stowers’ story begins in 1990. As the Department of Defense began to modernize its data systems, it ordered a review of all battlefield medal nominations. When Stowers’ recommendation was found, the Pentagon quickly took action to give the corporal the long overdue recognition and honor he deserved.

Freddie Stowers MOH Ceremony in 1991.
After the posthumous presentation of the Medal of Honor
to the sisters of Corporal (CPL) Freddie Stowers by
President George H. W. Bush, Mrs. Barbara Bush and
Mary Bowens admire the Medal of Honor certificate.
Ms Bowens is CPL Stowers’ sister. His other sister
Georgina Palmer (far left) looks on. CPL Stowers is the
only Black American to receive the Medal for action during
World War I. Photo: Robert Ward, DOD PA, April 4, 1991.

On April 24, 1991, more than 72 years after Stowers made the ultimate sacrifice for his nation, his sisters Georgiana Palmer and Mary Bowens, 88- and 77-years-old at the time, were presented his Medal of Honor by President George H. W. Bush.

Long before Stowers was honored by his nation, he, along with other members of Company C, received recognition from the French government: “For extraordinary heroism under fire.” Stowers and his unit received the Croix de Guerre – the French War Cross — the highest military medal France awards to allied soldiers.

Prior to World War I, 49 African Americans had been awarded the Medal of Honor, including 25 men who fought for the Union in the Civil War. There were 119 Medals of Honor recipients in World War I, with Stowers being the only African American. His long overdue recognition in 1991 is a small but important sign of the progress we as a nation have made.

Lonnie Bunch, Director All the best,
Lonnie Bunch
Director

P.S. We can only reach our $250 million goal with your help. I hope you will consider making a donation or becoming a Charter Member today.

The National Museum of African American History and Culture is the newest member of the Smithsonian Institution’s family of extraordinary museums.

 

The museum will be far more than a collection of objects. The Museum will be a powerful, positive force in the national discussion about race and the important role African Americans have played in the American story — a museum that will make all Americans proud.

Rand Paul — — reminders


Freshman Congressman Rand Paul … Celebrated his Teapublican victory at a Private Country Club …

Sen. Jim Bunning (R-KY) said yesterday that Kentucky GOP U.S. Senate candidate Rand Paul’s positions should be the positions of the Republican Party. “I think a lot of us in the Republican Party would like to see Rand Paul and his voting and how he will vote in the U.S. Senate [become] the position of the Republican Party,” Bunning told reporters. Bunning, however, didn’t endorse Paul’s controversial view of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.TP

Rand Paul has been reported stating,  he would (modify)? maybe abolish Dept of Education, Farm Subsidies, Slash Medicare, Fair Housing Act, American Disabilities Act and believes any Public entity should be subjected to the rule of law but Private Ownership should have the right to refuse service to anyone they want; which, makes one wonder if Rand actually understands the 1964 Civil Rights Act or how and who potential business owners get the right to do business, Public or Private … uh City, State, Federal business license ….

From NBC’s John Yang
LOUISVILLE — Rand Paul wasn’t the only Tea Party-favored candidate to defeat an establishment candidate in Kentucky today.

UPS pilot Todd Lally ran away with the Republican nomination to challenge Democratic Rep. John Yarmuth in Kentucky’s 3rd Congressional District, which centers on Louisville. He beat three candidates, including Jeff Reetz, a Pizza Hut franchise owner who was the favorite of the House Republican campaign committee.

Lally is strongly pro-gun rights and anti-abortion rights. The Louisville Courier-Journal‘s editorial page said that during his endorsement interview, he said President Obama wouldn’t be able to get a security clearance if he wasn’t president and said health care reform was for the benefit of “freeloaders.”

Rachel Maddow interviews Kentucky Republican Senate nominee Rand Paul about how he reconciles his views on small government with civil rights, racism and segregation.

WASHINGTON – Kentucky Republican Senate candidate Rand Paul said Friday that President Barack Obama’s criticism of BP in the wake of the Gulf oil debacle sounds “really un-American.”  Paul, already facing a backlash over remarks earlier this week about civil rights legislation, criticized the Obama administration for declaring it will put its “boot heel on the throat of BP.” White House spokesman Robert Gibbs used similar language shortly after the spill.  In an interview Friday on ABC’s “Good Morning America,” Paul says the president’s response is part of the “blame game” that’s played in the United States. msnbc

The morning after he declined to endorse the totality of the Civil Rights Act in his much-discussed appearance on the Rachel Maddow Show, Dr. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) copped to feeling regret — not over his comments, but rather his decision to be interviewed by Maddow in the first place.

“It was a poor political decision and probably won’t be happening anytime in the near future,” the Tea Party endorsed Senate candidate said on the Laura Ingraham show on Thursday morning. “Because, yeah, they can play things and want to say, ‘Oh you believed in beating up people that were trying to sit in restaurants in the 1960s.’ And that is such a ridiculous notion and something that no rational person is in favor of. [But] she went on and on about that.”

Blaming the messenger is a tactic often used by politicians when the message itself is to blame. And Paul’s appearance on the Maddow show on Wednesday night was anything but bland. For 15 minutes, he and the host went back and forth in debating where there should be limits to government efforts to desegregate private institutions (Paul was skeptical that the government should play any role at all). But the notion that the MSNBC host was somehow unloading liberal hostilities on him doesn’t jibe with the fact that Paul got the same type of treatment during an NPR interview earlier that morning — or, for that matter, that a conservative voice on MSNBC, Joe Scarborough, seemed aghast at his answers. “He needs to come up with an answer today, or Kentucky will be Arizona: a battleground for ugly, racial politics,” Scarborough said. “He has 24 hours.”

(Paul, in fact, chose Maddow’s show to initially launch his Senate candidacy a year prior to last night’s appearance.)

Paul did seem to draw back (or tighten) his discussion of the Civil Rights Act during his interview with Ingraham.

“These are settled issues in the Civil Rights Act,” he said. “I have no intention of bringing up anything related to the Civil Rights Act… I think [segregation] is sort of a stain and blight on our history — so, no, I have never really favored any change in the Civil Rights Act or any of that. But they have seemed to unleash the loony left on me.”

In April of last year, Dr. Rand Paul was the featured guest speaker at an event held by the Constitution Party of Minnesota, whose stated goals include “restor[ing] American jurisprudence to its Biblical foundations.”

Bruce Wilson

Bruce Wilson

Writes on religion and politics

Rand Paul Keynoted 2009 Rally for Far-Right Constitution Party

All you really need to know about Christian Reconstructionism is in the title of a January 2008 Talk To Action story of mine, More From The Biblical Stoning & Legalized Slavery Movement.

Enter Rand Paul.

Amidst the hullaballoo over Republican Rand Paul’s upset victory in the Kentucky GOP primary for US Senate, one of the few journalists to raise the issue of Paul’s somewhat uncomfortable proximity to Christian Reconstructionism has been Alternet’s Adele Stan, who observes that Rand Paul’s father Ron Paul is personal friends with one of the bigger names in the Christian Reconstructionist movement, Howard Phillips, founder of the US Taxpayers Party — now re-branded as The Constitution Party. But there’s much more direct evidence tying Ran Paul to the Constitution Party, whose national platform declares,

“The goal of the Constitution Party is to restore American jurisprudence to its Biblical foundations…The U.S. Constitution established a Republic rooted in Biblical law”

As Adele Stan notes, Phillips gave a keynote address at the Ron Paul For President Convention in Minneapolis a year and a half ago. And, Ron Paul endorsed the 2008 Constitution Party’s presidential candidate in the 2008 election, Chuck Baldwin.

As it’s said, the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree. In a May 21, 2009 appearance on the Alex Jones Show, Rand Paul affirmed that his political beliefs were extremely close to those of his father Ron:

Alex Jones: “You’re basically what I would call a chip off the old block. Your policies are basically identical to your father, correct?”Rand Paul: “I’d say we’d be very very similar. We might present the message sometimes differently.. I think in some ways the message has to be broadened and made more appealing to the entire Republican electorate because you have to win a primary.” [Rand Paul on Alex Jones, 5/21/09]

So it isn’t altogether surprising that Rand Paul could be found, in April 2009, at a rally held by a political party that’s been heavily influenced by a movement whose founder, Rousas Rushdoony, advocated executing homosexuals by stoning, wanted to reimpose the institution of slavery, and maintained that the Sun rotated around the Earth.

[below – video from Minneapolis “End the Fed” rally establishes that Rand Paul was in the vicinity prior to the Minnesota Constitution Party rally later that day. Note: the rally itself was not held by the MN Constitution Party.]

On April 25, 2009, Rand Paul was the featured guest speaker at The Constitution Party of Minnesota’s “event of the year.” I’ve found video of Rand Paul at an afternoon Minneapolis rally, so he was without a doubt in the vicinity.

Just to make sure I talked to Tammy Houle, whose phone number is the Minnesota Constitution Party listed contact number, and she confirmed to me that Rand Paul had indeed spoken at the April 25th evening event.

The odd thing about Rand and Ron Paul’s political tendency is that it offers liberals and progressives a number of points of agreement, probably more than with more ‘mainstream’ conservative GOP politicians. For example, Ron Paul has been a principled opponent of the invasion of Iraq and US military adventurism in the Mideast generally, and Rand Paul espouses the same position.

But it’s hard to get much more extreme than Christian Reconstructionism, whose founder Rushdoony was a Holocaust denier, a racist, a creationist, and an advocate for slavery who claimed that African-American slaves were lucky.

Weigh it for yourself — Howard Phillips, who founded the Constitution Party, has, according to journalist Frederick Clarkson, described Rousas J. Rushdoony as “my wise counseler.”

As Rushdoony wrote in Politics of Guilt and Pity:

The white man is being systematically indoctrinated into believing that he is guilty of enslaving and abusing the Negro. Granted that some Negroes were mistreated as slaves, the fact still remains that nowhere in all history or in the world today has the Negro been better off. The life expectancy of the Negro increased when he was transported to America. He was not taken from freedom into slavery, but from a vicious slavery to degenerate chiefs to a generally benevolent slavery in the United States. There is not the slightest evidence that any American Negro had ever lived in a “free society” in Africa; even the idea did not exist in Africa. The move from Africa to America was a vast increase of freedom for the Negro…

None of this, of course, is Rand Paul’s direct responsibility. But it certainly is suggestive.

And so, without further ado, here’s the April 9, 2009 post advertising Rand Paul’s April 25th appearance at the Minnesota Constitution Party “Liberty Banquet 2009” that’s posted on Ronpaulforums.com :

The Constitution Party of Minnesota announces with anticipation, the event of the year — Liberty Banquet 2009Patriots and statesmen will come together on April 25th to hear featured guest,

Dr. RAND PAUL

Don’t miss this opportunity to unite with other like-minded folks for an evening of inspiration and motivation. The evening begins at 5:00 pm with a social hour, dinner at 6:00, followed by introductions and guest speakers. Preceding Dr. Paul, we will hear a few words from the two tenacious gentlemen that recently accepted the co-chairmanship of the CPMN Veteran’s Coalition, Leon Moe and John Salsbury.

The Chaska VFW will be the location of the event, which is located one block west of the intersection of Old Hwy. 212 and Hwy. 41 near downtown Chaska. The cost of tickets is $30 per person or 4 for $100. Get yours soon by sending payment to CPMN Treasurer, Patricia Becker, 23078 – 21st Avenue, St. Augusta, MN 56301.

Related News On Huffington Post:

A version of this post was originally published on Talk To Action.

Related News On Huffington Post:

Rand Paul Gently Rebuked By GOP Senators Over Civil Rights Act Opposition
Senate Republicans are cautiously distancing themselves from the controversial comments about civil rights legislation made by the GOP candidate who wants to join their caucus….
Top Dems Suggest Tea Party Might Be More Bark Than Bite

Top Democrats at the various campaign committees are expressing more and more confidence that they can overcome the wave of anti-government populist sentiment unleashed by…
Sarah Palin: Rand Paul’s ‘Libertarian Streak’ Will Ward Off ‘Leftist Liberal Overreach’

Former Republican Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin spoke Wednesday night about the positives of the establishment-shaking victory of Rand Paul, the Tea Party and Palin-supported…
Rand Paul: Obama Sounds ‘Un-American’ For Criticizing BP Over Gulf Oil Spill (VIDEO)

In attempting to close the book on his controversial statements about the scope of the Civil Rights Act, Kentucky Senate candidate Rand Paul invited another…
Rand Paul Is ‘Kentucky Fried Candidate’ Over Civil Rights Comments

WASHINGTON (AP) — A tea party conservative on a national stage, Republican Senate candidate Rand Paul of Kentucky labored Thursday to explain remarks suggesting businesses…
Is Rand Paul The Real Deal Or Just A One-Hit Wonder?

“Washington is horribly broken.” “The debt bomb is ticking.” Those were the words spoken by newly-christened Kentucky Republican Senate nominee Rand Paul during his victory…
Rand Paul Blasted By James Clyburn Over Civil Rights Act: ‘He Is Not Good For This Country’ (VIDEO)

GOP leaders in Congress have been cautious — if not tepid — in their rebuke of Kentucky Republican Senate candidate Rand Paul for his refusal…