Do You Stand With Klan?

Senator Rand Paul may find himself in the hot seat tonight as it has been revealed that the co-author of the book Paul published in 2011 is a racist, neo-confederate lost-causer who, among other things, sympathizes with the assassination of President Abraham Lincoln.

The man who co-wrote Sen. Rand Paul’s 2011 book and currently serves as an aide to the Kentucky Republican reportedly spent years in the 1990s and 2000s as a pro-secessionist activist and radio shock jock.

According to conservative news site The Washington Free Beacon, Jack Hunter, who currently serves as the senator’s new media director, spent his part of his 20s as a member of the League of the South, a group which “advocates the secession and subsequent independence of the Southern States from this forced union and the formation of a Southern republic.” In 1999, Hunter was listed as chairman of the group’s Charleston, S.C., chapter.

More

From 1999 to 2012, Hunter was a South Carolina radio shock jock known as the “Southern Avenger.” He has weighed in on issues such as racial pride and Hispanic immigration, and stated his support for the assassination of President Abraham Lincoln.

During public appearances, Hunter often wore a mask on which was printed a Confederate flag.

Prior to his radio career, while in his 20s, Hunter was a chairman in the League of the South, which “advocates the secession and subsequent independence of the Southern States from this forced union and the formation of a Southern republic.”

It’s mystifying to me that the Free Beacon would publish this report which is more representative of the work done by the Southern Poverty Law Center than their usual fair. This leads me to believe someone in the conservative establishment has a serious bone to pick with Senator Rand Paul.

And speaking of which, here’s the Southern Poverty Law Center on The League of the South.

The League of the South is a neo-Confederate group that advocates for a second Southern secession and a society dominated by “European Americans.” The league believes the “godly” nation it wants to form should be run by an “Anglo-Celtic” (read: white) elite that would establish a Christian theocratic state and politically dominate blacks and other minorities. Originally founded by a group that included many Southern university professors, the group lost its Ph.D.s as it became more explicitly racist. The league denounces the federal government and northern and coastal states as part of “the Empire,” a materialist and anti-religious society.

In Its Own Words
“Somebody needs to say a good word for slavery. Where in the world are the Negroes better off today than in America?”
— Jack Kershaw, League of the South board member, 1998

While others have emphasized that Jack Hunter is a current aide to Senator Rand Paul, I believe the fact that he co-authored Rand’s book The Tea Party Goes to Washington is far more revealing.

On The Tea Party Goes to Washington

It primarily provides a spirited defense of his belief in Tea Party principles. An extra is a list of books that Paul calls “must-read classics.” They range from The Conscience of a Conservative by Barry Goldwater to Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged.

He criticizes President Obama’s “big-government agenda,” but bristles at the suggestion that the movement is against Obama because of race.

“The Tea Party doesn’t see politics in black and white,” Paul wrote, “but black and red — even as its critics continue to see racism when it simply does not exist.” [...]

Paul wrote the book with the assistance of Jack Hunter, a Charleston, S.C., conservative radio talk-show host. It is published by Center Street, a division of Hatchette Book Groups Inc.

The lines of division between libertarians, lost-causers, and some of today’s staunch government critics on the Left are increasingly dubious. And while I certainly wouldn’t draw a direct line between them as their motivations are often, but not necessarily, divergent, I would suggest that anyone who “Stands With Rand” on virtually any subject should be viewed with the utmost skepticism and scrutiny.

There is an element of callous disregard for the welfare of others that accompanies any motion that lends credence to the message of libertarians who, beneath the veneer of big government concern-trolling, would enable the return of some of our nation’s worst trespasses against humanity.

You may have wildly different views on race, the size of government, and the general welfare of the nation than they do, but if you co-opt their language and adopt their professed skepticism of all governance while placing absolute distrust in our judicial system of checks and balances, you enable them. You give them a pass. And you shouldn’t be shocked when your unprincipled stand offends those who would be harmed by their policies.

It is no coincidence that just as Rand Paul expressed his skepticism of the Civil Rights Act, implying that integrated lunch-counters were an overreach on the part of government, a book was being published under his name co-authored by the Southern Avenger.

According to the Washington Free Beacon, Jack Hunter renounced his views in a interview conducted Monday, but if you really believe that, I have some Doomsday Insurance I’d like to sell you.

This entry was posted in Civil War, Racism, Rand Paul and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.
  • Joyce M

    There goes Iowa, New Hampshire, the Midwest, Florida and the West. If this issue is raised during the nationally televised debates, Paul is doomed as the Republican nominee….that’s if his praise of Snowden doesn’t do him in first.

  • Draxiar

    I hope Rand Paul get ass fucked with this information mercilessly for the rest of his life.

    • blackdaug

      I was kind of hoping for something a little more “Girl with the Dragon Tatoo” social worker …..like….but I guess this will do.

  • http://phydeauxpseaks.blogspot.com Bob Rutledge

    For the three comments above….

  • http://drangedinaz.wordpress.com/ IrishGrrrl

    All of the libertarians and quite a few Republicans (usually male) I know feel the same way about Lincoln and think that the way the Civil War is taught in schools is wrong (i.e., slavery didn’t cause it, big government did).

    • blackdaug

      “….but it wasn’t about slavery…it was about states rights! ”
      States rights to own slaves……

    • http://www.facebook.com/felonious.grammar Felonious Grammar

      I went to school in Texas from the first through eighth grades. In my classes in Texas, we had been given the impression that the South lost on a technicality. Of course I thought slavery was evil and the war was justified, but I didn’t how the South lost.

      Then I went to a high school in Indiana. When the Civil War discussion opened— before there had been any reading assignments or lectures— the teacher asked the class to name some of the big Civil War battles. Hands up everywhere. One after another about a dozen battles named off the top of their heads. I got a clue.

      When I studied in college (back in Texas) my prof. was an African American social historian and the head of the African-American studies department. The stomping was visceral. I said, “Yeah.”

      • http://drangedinaz.wordpress.com/ IrishGrrrl

        That’s interesting! I was raised in the 1970’s in Memphis, TN. I don’t honestly remember talking about the Civil War until high school and by then I’d moved up to a wealthy school district in central PA (thank goodness). My HS teachers did an excellent job, if I may say so myself. I DO remember living with the aftermath of the Civil War even though it was soooo many years later.

        • LeShan Jones

          The south lost the war they started, but they won the peace that followed. They were allowed to redefine the cause of the war and to push their lost cause mythology (the American equivalent to the German ‘stabbed in the back’ meme) which allowed them to prevent civil rights from being enacted.

          A lot of people will say the republicans are trying to turn back the clock to the 1950s, I think they are aiming towards a time when civil rights weren’t on the rise, and the rich were literally allowed to dictate to the American government what they wanted to have happen. That would be the 1890’s, when progressive reforms were violently put down by armed thugs and lynchings and Jim Crow were ascending.

          • http://drangedinaz.wordpress.com/ IrishGrrrl

            I agree that is exactly what they are trying to do–take us back to the 1890’s.

  • http://drangedinaz.wordpress.com/ IrishGrrrl

    Oh, no, it’s not over. This is too early in the race. Liberals will remember but the rest of American will forget in about 5….4….3…. or they will never have heard of it. And the Paul supporters will either say 1) the lefties are smearing him and/or 2) Hunter views are correct (and/or because logic doesn’t work all that well for them).

    • Victor_the_Crab

      Not all liberals will remember. The ones who hate Obama and are lined up behind Team Greenwald would be too dumb to notice.

    • Mike_Norris

      Oh, I intend to smear him alright…

  • i_a_c

    Rand Paul says that the hard part about believing in freedom is believing in the “liberty” for whites to discriminate, if they want. But yeah, professional left douchebags, prove just how privileged you are and Stand with Rand over NSA and DRONEZ notwithstanding his opposition to civil rights and every single liberal economic issue. Every single one.

  • BlueTrooth

    Wait, you mean Rand Paul is going to run for President of the “whole” United States?

  • trgahan

    The current wave of faux-libertarianism being just rebranded conservative white male exceptionalism is hardly a surprise.

    The ones I know were all smarmy W supporters until Iraq and Afghanistan went to hell, torture was all over the news, gas prices topped $8, and the value of the dollar plummeted. They needed a new platform to talk down to progressives without being associated with the disaster that was the last Republican presidency.