Rand Paul Made Same Racial Comments in 2002

Rand Paul’s appearance last evening on Rachel Maddow wasn’t the first time he made comments about racial discrimination.

In a May 30, 2002 letter to the editor of the Bowling Green Daily News about the Federal Fair Housing Act, Rand Paul made his beliefs about legalized discrimination quite clear.

Here are some excerpts from his letter headlined “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.


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.

He’s on the record being in support of the right of individuals and businesses to openly discriminate against people – and violate their basic human rights.

P.S. Welcome to new readers from Washington Post, Political Wire, MyDD, CNN, and Politico. I may be classified as “left-leaning,” but am an equal opportunity hack. All jokes aside, glad to have you poking around here in the great Commonwealth of Kentucky.

68 thoughts on “Rand Paul Made Same Racial Comments in 2002

  1. the RANSDSLIDE i think has Trey
    being where Lt. Dan just was, for young
    WILLIAM JOHNSON has an equal
    exposure to Sec’ of State Tre, and
    given that there were ACCURATE
    voter totals, we must assume that at
    least on ONE day of the year Trey
    earned HIS salary in full!!! methinks!

  2. i need a pair of rEVOLUTIOn
    spectacles, and now i must
    patiently wait for my own
    franklin-esque bi-focals!
    RANDSLIDE as a word
    didst not spring from
    hannity’s lips i hear!

  3. Davi, I also wish that Dr. Paul would just withdraw. But it’s not going to happen. In fact I think he’ll win Kentucky. He can seal the deal by waiving a rebel flag and talking about the right of individuals to wear the stars and bars. This whole thing will get him more votes than take any away.

    The benefit is that he will kill the Republican party in other states. People in Cali, Conn, and other races need to plaster the airwaves with his comments. He may win the Kentucky seat, but he can be used to bleed the repubelickens dry.

  4. While I completly stand behind an individual’s right to harbor hatred and descrimination towards others (it’s an American tradition unfortunately), a private business relies on the public sector to exist.

    Where do they get their electricity from, their water, or the roads that lead their patrons to their front door? If they get robbed, or have a fire? They rely on public agencies day in and day out. So to attempt this dishonest word game surrounding public vs private business from having the right to discriminate is an intellectual joke, which is what he is basing his entire argument on.

  5. If a “private” business in Paul’s utopian society deferred access to these resources. In other words had their own well for water; supplied their own electricity outside of the public grid; did not have access to the fire, police or sheriffs department; does not have the roads that lead to their business built and maintained by the government…this is a short list, I’m sure y’all can come up with others. Then I’m fine with them discriminating against anyone they want to in their “private” backwoods shanty.

    I just hope the health department doesn’t come by for a visit. Ooops! I guess they wouldn’t be allowed to come by to protect the public health either. Hope you like them burgers!

  6. I am a Republican……..not of the “Dixiecrat convert” persuasion, either. A real Republican……….and it’s no secret that I would welcome the bringing down of the Paul campaign. Admittedly, it is incredibly hard for me to see it being done by liberals………but so be it. It’s got to be done. My sincere hope is that it can be done on this particular issue. I have been fighting this battle throughout the primary, as Jake knows. Okay, so it’s been primarily in the context of the pro-life argument. Sue me. But we agree that Rand Paul has major issues with the Fourteenth Amendment as a whole………..right? It explains his misunderstanding about the Gitmo issue. I disagree with President Obama that the prisoners should be brought onto American soil………but hey, I agree with him that if they are on American soil, they have the right to due process. Mitch would agree, too, I’m sure………..because he’s a Republican and we “get that” the same as the President does. Rand Paul? He doesn’t seem to get that! He’s all over the place on that issue, I think because he’s simply against the Fourteenth Amendment. I’m pretty sure, for instance, that this is why he wasn’t endorsed by the NRA…..because they have filed court briefs saying that the Fourteenth ensures that the right to bear arms is an “individual right”. I wonder, is this why he’s so cozy with militias? Because hey, it seems fathomable that he might be opposed to an “individual” right because of his opposition to the 14th. I know liberals would argue against me on these points, but I’m trying to explain why a conservative Republican shouldn’t support Rand Paul……….and it’s the same reason a liberal Democrat shouldn’t support Rand Paul. It’s the Fourteenth Amendment. I love it. You love it. Rand doesn’t love it.

  7. Correction: It was not fair for me to say “as a whole”. I should have said it’s clear he has a problem with Section 1……….but many in his base attack the amendment in its entirety.

  8. I do not wish to associate with people who think like Rand Paul or have my children associat e with people like me. I am sure he would up hold our rights to exclude people like him from businesses, private schools, etc., Lets get started.

  9. The right to freedom of association stops once you leave your front door. It doesn’t matter how “privately-owned” a business is — if you open your doors to the public, that’s it, you cannot discriminate anymore.

  10. Hence the term “Public Accomodation.” In the scope of a few short hours he bashed minorities, the disabled, the aged, and the poor over his Civil Rights, ADA, and Fair Housing comments.

    Would you ever imagine a state GOP telling a US Senate candidate to STFU?

    You broke it Rand Paul. You own it. For the sake of the Commonwealth…resign!

  11. How many times did Rand Paul excoriate The South for being racist? I recall at least three times he laid that out. He also used the open carry analogy in a way that indicates he opposes open carry. So, I’m curious. Are there any Southern Tea Partiers scratching their heads, or has it not registered?

  12. Freedom of association is like freedom of speech. It’s a right, regardless of whether you agree with what they say or who they associate with. If a organization or business is bigoted then I boycott it, just like I am boycotting Arizona and France.

Comments are closed.