Rand Paul: I abhor racism, but believe businesses have the right to segregate

Tea Party candidate Rand Paul (R-KY), son of Ron Paul (R-TX), told Rachel Maddow following his big primary win on Tuesday that he would have marched with Martin Luther King but voted against Civil Rights because he believes the first amendment should allow for private business owners to segregate against people based on race, creed and religion, if they so choose. This discussion derives from an earlier interview with a local Kentucky paper in which Rand said he would have voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act, whose primary purpose was to do exactly what Paul says it shouldn't have done - desegregate.

Yeah you heard me right, Rand would have voted against Civil Rights. You can't make this shit up, but in his defense his father voted against reaffirming Civil Rights and has made a number of eye-brow raising comments over race in the past - like father, like son. In terms of Rand, he believes that businesses should have the right to not allow you into their establishment because you are black or gay or Jewish. He doesn't believe that the government should be involved in private businesses and their policies. Well people this is why we need big government on certain levels because dumb-asses like Rand, as well as the nutty, scumbag bigots, who believe in the right to segregate based on race, creed or religion.

You have to watch this interview to believe it for yourself. I think someone should remind Rand - who names their kid Rand by the way, if I owned a restaurant under his beliefs I would not let him in based on his name - that this is the year 2010 not 1950. I think no matter what he believes, he should have just shut his mouth on the subject because it's not like the Civil Rights Act is a pertinent issue in today's America or is it anything that is going away any time soon - or is it! I mean could you imagine icons like Jay-Z or LeBron James not being allowed to enter a restaurant because they are black - well Rand Paul can! But what else would we expect out of the Tea Party candidate. I have a feeling that the Kentucky Senate race just went from an easy win for Republicans to a bloodbath. But as a Democrat, I welcome Rand, and all other Tea Party and Republican candidates, to continue saying nutty things! It certainly cant hurt our chances come November.

No clear message for election season following Tuesday's primaries

With all the talk about Democrats possibly losing control of the House in the November mid-term elections, Tuesday's primaries turned out to be a promising day for liberals who flinch at the idea of the nutty Republican/Tea Party combination controlling the vote in Congress.

While the events of the day proved no clear message in how people will vote in November, one thing is for sure: the anti-incumbent, anti-Washington anger is not going away any time soon, meaning no one, not even the big political machines are safe from the anger on Main St.

The best example of this anti-establishment attitude took place in the Democratic primary for Senator in Pennsylvania, where Rep. Joe Sestak, who ignored the White House's request to not challenge the former Republican turned Democrat, Arlen Specter, for the seat. Sestak who had seemed like a long shot to win the nomination a month ago, easily defeated the former Republican who a little more than a year ago was hitching his wagon to the likes of George W. Bush and Sarah Palin. In the end, while the president's endorsement failed to win him the nomination, I would have to believe that it had more to do with Pennsylvania Democrats getting over voting for a man they opposed for three decades, than it was a referendum on President Obama. But I guess believing the vote had nothing to do with voters discontent over the status quo would be foolish as well.

Democrats also received some good news in Pennsylvania's 12th Congressional District, where the party was able to hold onto the seat left vacant by Jack Murtha's death. Mark Critz easily defeated the GOP candidate in a district that is heavily Republican. Unfortunately, Critz did run a campaign that was opposed to many of the White House's legislation (i.e. health care). But you can bet the White House will use the win to push back against a potential massacre in November.

In other races, Arkansas Senator Blanche Lincoln, who voted against health care and still received an endorsement from President Obama, was forced into a June 8 primary runoff with Lt. Gov. Bill Halter. Once again it seems as though Lincoln's potential defeat has less to do with the president and more to do with her centrist voting record.

The Democrats were not the only winners on this day as the Tea Party showed their influence in Kentucky's Republican Senate primary, after Rand Paul, son of Rep. Ron Paul, crushed Secretary of State Trey Grayson, who was endorsed by the state GOP, Sen. Mitch McConnell, Newt Gingrich and Dick Cheney. However, Paul is now facing some of his own problems after it was revealed that he would repeal Civil Rights, which he will have to answer too if he expects to defeat his Democratic challenger for the seat.

While the results on the day proved mostly positive for Democrats, it is inevitable that they will lose more seats than Republicans due to their majority in the House and Senate and the anti-incumbent attitude currently present in the country. Just how many seats they will lose remains to be seen.

What is going on in Arizona?: State bans ethnic studies in schools

First it was a law that would force President Obama to show his birth certificate in order to be on a primary ballot, then it was an immigration law that allowed for the racial profiling of Hispanics, and now non-white students in Arizona will not be permitted to study the history of their own ethnic background in public schools. Which leads me to ask, 'what the f*ck is going on in Arizona?'

It's one thing to attempt to curb an immigration problem because illegal immigrants are in fact illegal - although I would argue the methodology - but to not teach children the truth about Mexican-American history because you don't like the outcome, doesn't mean you have the right to create a law that bans teaching it in schools. Because if that is the case, why don't they just take all of the terrible things that happened in our history out of school text books. I mean who needs to know about the near-extermination of Native Americans, or the enslavement and segregation of blacks, or the stealing of Mexican land, or the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II, or any of the other gross injustices that have taken place in this country since its inception. The fact is that we already mollify these harsh truths in our text books enough and now we are just going to stricken it from teachings in order not to incite Hispanic students. And anyway, when has there ever been a backlash from these students due to these teachings? And maybe they should be a little pissed. I mean African Americans have the right to be upset over slavery and segregation, so shouldn't Hispanics have the right to be upset over the way they have been treated by this country? Especially in light of the new immigration bill.

The saddest part about this new law is that Superintendent Tom Horne was a major supporter of the bill. He says that such studies divide students, which leads me by this reasoning to ask, 'doesn't teaching white/European history also divide students?' All I know is that if I were a parent in Arizona, I would be calling for this man's resignation. It's one thing for some narrow-minded law maker to support such a bill, but for man who is in charge of educating students to support this, is like an editor supporting a ban on the Freedom of Information Act - it just wouldn't make any sense to give up the truth in a profession that demands the truth to be successful.

The reason why this is an important issue, which I believe to be unconstitutional at first glance, is that it is important for all of us to know the truth - White, Black, Asian, Native American, Hispanic and every other group that has settled in America. For if we don't learn our own history, we are doomed to repeat it! Which seems to be the case right now in Arizona. And if they don't start changing their attitude, then long after these laws have been repealed, and possibly even sooner, our history books will be including these same individuals - and who wants to be remembered for something as evil as racism, I guess Arizona.

Obama kills at White House Correspondents dinner

President Barack Obama took advantage of his chance to roast himself and critics last night at the annual White House Correspondents dinner.

The WHCA dinner has become a tradition since 1920, and 13 presidents have attended since Calvin Coolidge first attended in 1924. The event, that used to feature singing and big-name performers has since taken the form of a roast.

In recent years, the event has fallen short due to major national tragedies, such as the Oklahoma City bombing, the Siege at Waco, Texas, the Columbine shooting, and the Virginia Tech Massacre. Another tragedy almost marred this year's event, when New York City police discovered a car bomb in Times Square. The police were able to diffuse the bomb before it detonated.

Along with President Obama, Jay Leno performed a skit that many considered to pale in comparison to President Obama's. Above is the full-video of both President Obama and Jay Leno's stand-up at the dinner. Enjoy!