Rand Paul Fights for Godly Rights to Dine in ‘Smoke-Filled Restaurant’
June 7, 2010
(ChattahBox)—Rand Paul’s kooky libertarian views on the sacred rights of private property owners to do just about anything they want without governmental interference, including the right to discriminate, have drawn widespread media criticism and mockery, as they should. After taking hits for his questioning of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the Fair Housing Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act, and attacking President Obama as “un-American” for criticizing BP’s response to the Gulf oil disaster, Paul promptly ended contact with the national media. But now he is baaack! Paul penned an opinion piece in the Bowling Green Daily News, describing himself as an idealist, who is fighting for our “God-given” rights to dine in a “smoke-filled restaurant,” breathe dirty air and eat food without knowing that it contains enough fat and calories to kill us. Oh, and Paul fancies himself a pioneering brave idealist just “like Martin Luther King Jr.”
Besides ridiculously comparing himself to Martin Luther King Jr., Paul also took the time to again, attack the Americans with Disabilities Act with the debunked falsehood that the law forces the owner of a two-story building to install a costly elevator. It doesn’t.
Below are some choice passages from Paul’s freedom campaign to subject Americans to the health risks of second-hand smoke and other oddities:
“I am unlike many folks who run for office. I am an idealist. When I read history I side with abolitionists such as William Lloyd Garrison and Frederick Douglas who fought for 30 years to end slavery and to integrate public transportation in the free North in the 1840s. I see our failure to end slavery for decade after decade as a failure of weak-kneed politicians.” [...]
“Segregation ended only after a great and momentous uprising by idealists like Martin Luther King Jr., who provoked weak-kneed politicians to action.”
Now, Paul plans to use the energy of the abolitionists to end the freedom-killing federal nanny state:
“In 2010, there are battles that need to be fought, and they have nothing to do with race or discrimination, but rather the rights of people to be free from a nanny state. For example, I am opposed to the government telling restaurant owners that they cannot allow smoking in their establishments. I believe we as consumers can choose whether to patronize a smoke-filled restaurant or do business with a smoke-free option. Think about it – this overreach is now extending to mandates about fat and calorie counts in menus. Do we really need the government managing all of these decisions for us? My overriding principle is this: I believe in the natural right of all individuals to have their God-given liberty protected. And that’s why I believe the Civil Rights Act was necessary, and that I would have voted for it.” [...]
“This much is clear: the federal government has overreached in its power grabs. Just look at the national health care schemes, which my opponent supports. Look at the out of control EPA, trying to make law by overreaching regulations that will harm Kentucky coal.”
Health care, clean air, healthy food, the Americans with Disabilities Act, who needs em’?
Photo Source: Wikimedia Commons/The smoker’s promenade/Library of Congress