Private Business Rights

The Republican Primary victory by Dr. Rand Paul displayed the influence the Tea Party can have on the future of the Republican Party. Dr. Paul is a lifetime Libertarian who campaigned in the Primary on fiscal conservative message but may have just unraveled that message with his comments made on the Rachel Maddow Show. The issue that may be Dr. Paul's Achilles Heel is his view on the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Although he agrees with ending the racism in government and institutional racism but he does feel the Government overreaches when it comes to private businesses. The comment made by Dr. Paul does create an interesting philosophical debate on the right of private business.

Earlier this year we saw private business rights challenged, which I do not believe any lawsuits ever came of it, when a doctor placed a sign outside his office telling any Obama supporters need not apply. The sign did have another twist because of the Hippocratic Oath that all doctors take before being allowed to practice medicine. Yet it still brings up the rights of private business. Does it make sense, from the standpoint of owning a business, to turn away anyone when they want to purchase from one's business? No. Do we need protections, like OSHA, for our citizens? Yes.

How far can the Government go to tell a private business how they are to run their own business? Setting aside Dr. Paul's comments a local private business, Target, had to deal with religious issues from their Muslim workers. For those that do not recall, Target Muslim cashiers refused to scan pork products because it violated their religious freedoms. In the end Target bowed to the perceived violation of the Muslim's Constitutional right to practice their religion. Here is the thing, when one agrees to work for a private employer for the most part your Constitutional Rights stop at the door step. Another example of Government intrusion into private business is the banning of smoking. While we can agree that smoking is not healthy for one; yet if one takes a job in a bar or restaurant or any establishment that allows smoking then we as an employee need to recognize that.

Now where the Government can mitigate the impact of smoking is through requirement of filtration to recycle the air. When it comes to private property are we okay with continual government intrusion?

To Debate “ObamaCare” translate to Racism?

Frank Rich over the weekend wrote an Op-Ed, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/28/opinion/28rich.html, that asserted, "That a tsunami of anger is gathering today is illogical, given that what the right calls "Obamcare" is less provocative than either the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or Medicare, an epic entitlement that actually did precipitate a government takeover of a sizable chunk of American health care. But the explanation is plain: the health care bill is not the main source of this anger and never has been. It's merely a handy excuse. The real source of the over-the-top rage of 2010 is the same kind of national existential reordering that roiled America in 1964." Now I was not born till 1971 so I did not experience 1960's first hand. I have read a number of sources while studying history at UND and do not see the comparison that Frank Rich is drawing between "ObamaCare" and the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Rich asserts that racial overtones are the main cause for all the outrage which I do not buy.

As Rich points out accurately the Civil Rights Act of 1964 passed the Senate with 73 votes (bipartisan) versus the partisan vote and reconciliation of "Obamcare". From what I have read and seen, Americans are fed up with government growth and mounting debt. It has nothing to do with a President that is mullato. Pat Sajak, yes Wheel of Fortune Sajak, wrote an Op-Ed to retort Rich, http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=36241, Op-Ed. Sajak's message was, "Welcome to post-racial America, where those who oppose a piece of legislation must defend themselves against the scurrilous charges of a man who seems much better suited to reviewing "Cats"." The reason I quote Sajak is because the nature of Rich's claim to fame as being a theater critic.

Sajak goes on to say, "This was a particularly shameful column, and the millions of Americans who oppose this legislation are owed an apology. Are they right? Are they wrong? Let's discuss it. Let's debate it. Let's yell and scream if we want to. But would it be too much to ask that we approach the matter based on its merits and leave the psychobabble to Dr. Phil?" Who is more on the ball; Rich or Sajak?

Because one opposes "ObamaCare" does that automatically make them a racist, sexist and a homophobic? Let's look at the facts of the bill and debate it. Yes it is already passed but remember it was House Speaker Pelosi that made it clear that Americans will see what is in the bill after it is passed. Right now Morning Joe, on MSNBC, is discussing the fringe elements media spin and if things are being accurately displayed by the mass media. The only death threat on record, to this point, is against Republican Eric Cantor. But I digress. Will "ObamaCare" place burdens on United Sates companies as AT&T, Verizon, John Deere and Catepillar are all asserting to which Democrat leadership response is to drag the CEO's in front of Congress to defend their revelations.

How do we debate the merits of health care reform that was passed without invoking "psychobabble" and labeling those in opposition as being a racist, sexist or homophobic? Or is a post-racial America a pipe dream?