»» Columnists

John Stossel Goes Predictably ‘Stossel’ On Rand Paul’s Civil Rights Act ‘Scandal’

video

by Frances Martel | 4:08 pm, May 20th, 2010

» 40 comments

Pop quiz! What does John Stossel think of Rand Paul’s alleged (now debunked) opposition to the 1964 Civil Rights Act? Take three guesses. Stossel came out in completely predictable form today, asserting he was in “full agreement” with Paul’s belief that private businesses should be allowed to discriminate against anyone, including himself and America Live host Megyn Kelly.

After giving a quick recap of the day’s top story– Kentucky Senate candidate Rand Paul’s rampant libertarianism– Kelly asked Stossel for his opinion, and he couldn’t have given a less surprising answer:

“I’m in total agreement with Rand Paul. You could call it public accommodation, and it is, but it’s a private business. And if a private business wants to say ‘we don’t want any blonde women or mustached guys,’ it ought to be their right. Are we going to say to the Black Students’ Association that they have to take white people, or the gay softball association that they have to take straight people? We should have freedom of association in America.”

Kelly challenges him to the fact that the CRA was necessary, and later compares allowing discriminatory groups the right to associate with murder, which Stossel takes her to task for. Asked why he believes businesses that practice discrimination– even against “blonde women and mustached guys”– would certainly fail, he answered: “The free market competition would have cleaned the clocks of the people who didn’t serve most customers.”

While, on the whole, the Rand Paul Civil Rights Act story has been pretty destructive to debate on actual policies that will be discussed in Congress, one interesting thing about the affair is that it seems to really be hitting a nerve of solidarity in the usually dispersed libertarian media community, the members of which, with the glaring exception of Stossel himself, isn’t that far into the mainstream. The top story at Reason magazine right now is entitled “Everybody Loves Rand,” with a picture of the candidate to distinguish from the 20th century author. Reason alum and Washington Post blogger David Weigel took some heat for defending Paul today and gave a positive retweet to the Stossel interview; the latest episode of Judge Andrew Napolitano’s Freedom Watch web series includes an interview with Paul.

For a community that prides itself on its ideological unity being as easy to achieve as herding cats, this is about as unanimous as it gets. And it’s bringing out the libertarian sympathies in otherwise authoritarian conservatives like the folks at RedState or National Review‘s The Corner, too, or at least getting them to question the people attacking Paul, rather than Paul himself. That the solidarity will do anything to make the situation less embarrassing for Paul– who has already regretted his appearance on The Rachel Maddow Show last night– seems unlikely, as the accusation of racism and final conviction of extremism will be hard to erase from the Right’s new eccentric lead man.

America Live, civil rights act, conservatives, fox news, Freedom Watch, John Stossel, libertarians, Megyn Kelly, Rand Paul, Reason

Sue

What scandal? Oh, the things that minorities and the media do to white America? Whites are the only people who cannot have 100% of anything. They must include some of everybody but minorities don’t. Don’t get that, but that’s what has been the game since the l970′s.
http://www.pbump.net Philip Bump

Debunked? Having to refine his position because of blowback is hardly a debunking. His statements to Maddow and the Courier-Journal indicate pretty clearly that he took issue with the legislation.
TROLLING4LIBS

Scandal?
The Real Royal King

Paul-Stossel 2012
“If It Was Good Enough for 1912 Alabama, It’s Good Enough for 2012 Amerika!
ImNotBlue

Philip Bump says:
May 20, 2010 at 4:44 pm

He took issue with the legislation… but not with the intent. The anti-racism sentiments he agrees with… its the influence and power of government on businesses that he is not a fan of.

Trying to portray this as an issue of “race” is false. Race is simply the “cause” for the law… it is not the law itself. In other words, if a same law had been created but instead of “race” it was gender, ethnicity, religion, hair color, nose rings, shoes, etc. the reaction from Paul would be the same.

Of course, for those who like to play political games… expect this to be a “big issue” to them. Purposely distorting and changing the meaning… pretending like they don’t understand, in an attempt to win votes, and smear their opponent.
ImNotBlue

The Real Royal King says:
May 20, 2010 at 4:49 pm

The above proves my point. Being a willful idiot and liar, simply so you can hype one candidate over another.
The Real Royal King

After that colossal spin, INB, you must be really dizzy. Hurling yet? Everyone else is!
http://www.thecobraslair.com Cobra

Let me get this straight…

People posting to this blog threat want to REPEAL Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, allowing private businesses to discriminate based on race, creed or gender?

I just want people to go on the record here.

–Cobra
notsofast

#

After that colossal spin, INB, you must be really dizzy. Hurling yet? Everyone else is!
#
Cobra Cobra says:
May 20, 2010 at 4:57 pm

Let me get this straight…

People posting to this blog threat want to REPEAL Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, allowing private businesses to discriminate based on race, creed or gender?

I just want people to go on the record here.”

It’s guarenteed by the 1st. amendment.

And? Private clubs can do whatever they want and neither you nor the government can change that. Heard of a “Women’s Club?”

Now I saw where liberals were trying to make a college Christian group admit atheists, but I don’t think that is going to work.

Sorry, Cobra, you and your fascist government have no right to tell private associations what they can do.

And while you are at it, why won’t the The Congressional Black Caucus allow whites in?
ImNotBlue

The Real Royal King says:
May 20, 2010 at 4:55 pm

After that colossal spin, INB, you must be really dizzy. Hurling yet? Everyone else is!

Excellent refutation, King! You really made me eat my words!

I assume by “spinning” you mean, “told the truth.” I know how much you hate that. Show me where I’m wrong. Go ahead… I dare you.

Cobra says:
May 20, 2010 at 4:57 pm

People posting to this blog threat want to REPEAL Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, allowing private businesses to discriminate based on race, creed or gender?

Has anybody said that? Did Paul say that?

Nice straw man! Very pretty.
notsofast

And by the way Cobra and the KING, Title II of the act says NOTHING about PRIVATE businesses..

It talks about PUBLIC places of accommodation.

Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination because of race, color, religion, or national origin in certain places of public accommodation, such as hotels, restaurants, and places of entertainment.

Like Holder, Napolitano, BHO, try reading the law before you make up your lies, OK?
MichelleF

Frances Martel “predictably” has a problem with someone on Fox news. Yawn!
BR

Fine. I want my white children to get their college paid for by the united negro college fund.
http://www.thecobraslair.com Cobra

notsofast writes:

Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination because of race, color, religion, or national origin in certain places of public accommodation, such as hotels, restaurants, and places of entertainment. “

Oh, so a hotels, restuarants, theaters & night clubs are NOT “private businesses” now?

When did this happen?

–Cobra
http://www.thecobraslair.com Cobra

INB writes:

“Has anybody said that? Did Paul say that?

Nice straw man! Very pretty.”

John Stossel said it. Watch the video again.

–Cobra
Moderate

“Fine. I want my white children to get their college paid for by the united negro college fund.”

I assume you are joking.
notsofast

Cobra says:
May 20, 2010 at 6:04 pm

notsofast writes:

Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination because of race, color, religion, or national origin in certain places of public accommodation, such as hotels, restaurants, and places of entertainment. “

Oh, so a hotels, restaurants, theaters & night clubs are NOT “private businesses” now?

All the above are open to the PUBLIC!! It is not whether you are a “publicly” traded company!! If that were the case, companies that are not publicly traded, COULD discriminate

ROTHFLMAO!

I don’t believe how stupid liberals are, MG!

Are you really that ignorant?????

And answer this, , why won’t the The Congressional Black Caucus allow whites in?
notsofast

Cobra, name me some “private” restaurants.

I want to see what their ‘blue-plate special s” are.
Ted

I would ask that everyone just back off the thoughtful commentary of notsofast!! All he is saying is that he is not a racist. But it others are, what the hell, he can support it. Pray to Glenn for guidance on this issue…and buy gold and survival seeds!!
notsofast

Ted says:
May 20, 2010 at 8:07 pm

Someday, you may have something relevant to say- so far nothing.
Ted

notsofast – I could not agree with you more. As a card carrying Glenn Beck Tea-bagger I have absolutely nothing relevant to say…ever. And as long as I am a full fledged Glenn Beck Practitioner, I don’t expect that to change…I’m okay with that, by the way.

Buy survival seeds and pray for a plan.
http://www.thecobraslair.com Cobra

notsofast writes:

“Cobra, name me some “private” restaurants.

I want to see what their ‘blue-plate special s” are.”

You’re kidding, right? You think most diners and restaurants are “government owned?”

Here’s a link to “restaurants in Bowling Green, KY” where Rand Paul had his victory celebration.

http://www.superpages.com/yellowpages/C-Restaurants/S-KY/T-Bowling+Green/

If you think “Anna’s Greek Restaurant” is owned by the government, or publicly funded, that’s your delusion.

–Cobra
m

These are hardcore small goverment, laizze faire conservatives/libertarians who don’t believe in regulation what-so-ever. Both Stossel and Paul are complete madmen. If you believe in no regulation of private business, you are a complete whacko – a nutjob.
notsofast

Cobra says:
May 20, 2010 at 11:01 pm

notsofast writes:

“Cobra, name me some “private” restaurants.

I want to see what their ‘blue-plate special s” are.”

You’re kidding, right? You think most diners and restaurants are “government owned?”

Here’s a link to “restaurants in Bowling Green, KY” where Rand Paul had his victory celebration.

http://www.superpages.com/yellowpages/C-Restaurants/S-KY/T-Bowling+Green/

If you think “Anna’s Greek Restaurant” is owned by the government, or publicly funded, that’s your delusion.

–Cobra

You are one dumb lib- public- means open to the public, asshole-

Not the public sector!

LMFAO
notsofast

And Cobra, why won’t the The Congressional Black Caucus allow whites in?
writer

So, it’s okay for the government to intervene in privately owned businesses, but it’s an intrusion on personal liberty if it tries to check for people being here illegally.
JamesA1102

Rand Paul’s alleged (now debunked) opposition to the 1964 Civil Rights Act?

Alleged??? Now debunked??? Once again Ms. Martel you expose yourself as the dishonest shill that you are.

Shame on you Dan Abrams for continuing to employ this person.
AmericanCowboy

Man I would love to refuse service to Obama, not because he is black, but because he is stupid. If this was truly a free country and you own a resturant you should be able to refuse service to anyone. I would refuse service to all Democrats because they are all fools.

Think about it freedom would really be to have the choice of ho you serve, ho you hire and ho you befriend.

You should be able to discriminate for any reason you want.

I like it
ImNotBlue

JamesA1102 says:
May 21, 2010 at 1:12 am

You didn’t follow the links provided, did you? You believe what you believe… so the evidence of the contrary isn’t anything important… is it?
Liberty – Not Redistribution

It’s funny how liberals and neocons are using similar scare tactics. As for the 2012 election years tactics, the liberals seem bent on ignoring relevant issues such as foreclosures on the rise, record deficits via the feds, mounting death toll in Afghanistan and high unemployment. Instead, they are using throwing around unsubstantiated claims of racism. Typical
http://www.tnta.us lena

Lool lool look http://www.tnta.us/
yunyun

FASHION CLOTHING,JERSEY,NFL WASHINGTON REDSKINS,NFL TENNESSEE TITANS,NFL-ST LOUIS RAMS,NLF-SEATTLE SEAHAWKS,NFL-SAN FRANCISCO

49ERS,NFL-SAN DIEGO CHARGERS,NFL-PITTSBURGH STEELERS,NFL-PHILADELPHIA EAGLES,NFL OKLANDRAIDERS,NFL-MINNESOTA VIKINGS,NFL

MIAMI DOLPHINS,NFL KANSAS CITY CHIEFS,NFL-DENVER BRONCOS,NFL DALLAS COWBOYS,NFL CLEVELAND BROWNS,NFL CINCINNATI BENGALS,NFL

CHICAGO BEARS,NFL CAROLINA PANTHERS,NFL BALTIMORE RAVENS,NFL ATLANTA FALCONS,NFL ARIZOA CARDINALS,

NFL NEW YOUK JETS,NFL GREEN BAY PAC
http://www.fashionsports.org
TylerDurden

Patrick says he quit The Fly Club in 1983
Nine exclusive clubs at Harvard limit membership to men. A gubernatorial candidate’s link to one renews debate on elitism.

By Frank Phillips, Globe Staff | August 3, 2006

Senator Edward M. Kennedy earlier this year resigned his membership in Harvard’s all-male Owl Club, after Kennedy drew criticism for taking then- Supreme Court nominee Samuel A. Alito Jr. to task for belonging to a controversial Princeton alumni organization.

Sen. Edward M. Kennedy belongs to a social club for Harvard students and alumni that was evicted from campus nearly 20 years ago after refusing to allow female members.

According to the online membership directory of the Owl Club, the Massachusetts Democrat updated his personal information — including the address of his home, which is in his wife’s name — on Sept. 7.

The club has long been reviled on campus as “sexist” and “elitist” and, in 1984, was booted from the university for violating federal anti-discrimination laws, authored by Mr. Kennedy.

Kennedy belongs to exclusive club

Mr. Kennedy has spent much of this week’s Senate Judiciary Committee hearings interrogating Supreme Court nominee Samuel A. Alito Jr. about his ties to the Concerned Alumni of Princeton, a group that had opposed the admission of women in the early 1970s and is now defunct.
Integr8d

The neo-cons would rather have an establishment Democrat win Kentucky than Rand.
JamesA1102

You didn’t follow the links provided, did you? You believe what you believe… so the evidence of the contrary isn’t anything important… is it?

I didn’t need to follow any links. I saw the interview and what the man actually said. So there is no evidence to the contray just spin. You can believe the spin if you want, I’ll stick the the truth.
http://www.thecobraslair.com Cobra

writer writes:

“So, it’s okay for the government to intervene in privately owned businesses, but it’s an intrusion on personal liberty if it tries to check for people being here illegally.”

So you want people to obey the laws of the American government, but not privately owned businesses?

You need to turn off Glenn Beck for while, sir?

–Cobra
writer

So Cobra, you’re saying the law is the law and should always be obeyed. That’s what I was getting at. The law should also be obeyed in Arizona. Besides being illegal for restaurants to discriminate, it’s also illegal to enter the country without going through the proper procedures. I’m sure you agree.
http://www.thecobraslair.com Cobra

writer writes:

“The law should also be obeyed in Arizona. Besides being illegal for restaurants to discriminate, it’s also illegal to enter the country without going through the proper procedures. I’m sure you agree.”

I know how a business owner can obey the Civil Rights Act of 1964. How does a person living in, visiting or passing through Arizona obey SB1070 in your opinion?

–Cobra
Liberty – Not Redistribution

Cobra frothed:
“I know how a business owner can obey the Civil Rights Act of 1964. How does a person living in, visiting or passing through Arizona obey SB1070 in your opinion?”

You didn’t even answer his question, just diverted and distracted – you should apply for a job with the White House. You want to know how a person can obey SB1070? It’s easy. Individuals just need to obey US immigration law, and enter the country legally.
ConcernedCitizen3

Obviously many of you have no regard for actually relating the CRA to real life. Public accommodation would refer to places that service the general public. Private groups such as the Congressional Black Caucus or the United Negro College Fund, local S.O.I clubs, Elks clubs, and even the KKK, are allowed to discriminate because they ARE NOT public groups and don’t service the public. The fact that this is lost in translation in the least bit is ridiculous. Liberty, I can completely understand the need for a better functioning immigration law in Arizona, but what I can’t agree with is potentially invading the rights of actual U.S citizens and encouraging law enforcement to profile. That is what very possibly makes SB1070 unconstitutional. And honestly, if you want to get into a “free market” or economic debate, the institution of capitalism and the demand for cheap labor is the reason we have a immigration problem. I’m no socialist or communist or whatever else so-called conservatives might want to call me after reading this, but thats the issue if you want to get down to the brass tacks of the situation. But back on track with the topic, obviously John Stossel’s comments were in poor judgement, thinking that people would inherently change on their own or that a free market correction would lead to all businesses desegregating is absurd. In a country where African Americans make up less than 15 percent, it is extremely easy, to continue to make a profit and discriminate. The fact is we still have discriminative institutions today that a free market never corrected for so thinking that less regulation would fix the problem is just dumb. But in the case that you still want to think you should be able to discriminate, fine. Just don’t allow those businesses to use anything that publicly funded that I pay taxes to, i.e police, fire departments, health and human services, govt. subsidized health care, unemployment benefits, stimulus money, etc.