Posted on 05/24/2010 5:46:33 AM PDT by Servant of the Cross
Dr. Rand Paul was hoping for a “honeymoon” after his thumping victory in the Republican U.S. Senate primary in Kentucky. No such luck. Dr. Paul is a conservative Christian and if he wants a another honeymoon, he needs to talk to his wife.
Instead, what Rand Paul got was a grilling from one end of the chattering class to the other about his supposed opposition to the great Civil Rights Act of 1964. It is a fact that he stumbled in some of his answers to questions about individual titles of that act. Dr. Paul was not alive when the act was debated in front of the whole country in 1964. He needs to bone up on his history.
But the high tech lynching that is taking place now is of a piece with what the liberal media put Clarence Thomas through in 1991. Because Judge Thomas is an original construction jurist, he was seen as a threat by liberal activists. Because Justice Thomas is black, he is vilified by leftists who believe that all minorities must support their left wing causes. (snip)
Rand Paul is right to say that slavery and segregation were stains ... we overcame because conservative Republicans joined with liberal Democrats to pass the great Civil Rights Act of 1964.
President Lyndon Johnson was the first one to recognize the crucial role played by that proud Lincoln Republican, Sen. Everett McKinley Dirksen of Illinois. He gave a signing pen to the powerful Senate Minority Leader who provided the critical votes to break a filibuster engaged in by Democrats.
The liberal media is trying to sandblast Ev Dirksen’s name from the Senate Office Building named for him. We can’t let them do it. And helping Rand Paul is one way to stop the left from re-writing history.
(Excerpt) Read more at townhall.com ...
I think the GOP establishment sometimes changes their aim towards the heads of constitutionalists.
Yes...Rand...please tell the masses what sells...and only what sells.....be the RINO that the wise and "left" right expect!/S
A friend once explained the schlemozzel and the schlemiel to me this way: The schlemiel drops a banana peel, and ten thousand people can pass by unharmed until the schlemozzel comes, and he’ll slip on it.
In this case the schlemiel is the lamestream media and the Dems, the banana peel is libertarianism, with its inherent danger of incongruity between states’ rights and morality, and the schlemozzel is, of course, Rand Paul.
We fought a war over exactly this dilemma, didn’t we? Have we figured out the answer in the following 150 years?
Since we’re into philosophical discussions, I have the next subject for Rand Paul to debate. Resolved, should the United States have gotten involoved with the European War? After all, all of those states that Germany conquered were now under Hitler’s rule. So what if he wanted to gas all the Jews and murder the slavs. It’s their country. If the Germans needed liebenstraum then who is the United States to get involved. I’m sure that Rachael Maddow would love to be moderator...
The Civil Rights movement were about civil rights against government (which is constitutional) because as part of the public, they must be treated the same as everyone else where publicly owned entities were concerned.
However, the Civil Rights movement, as justified as they appeared, were also a Special Rights movement, because government has no authority to force private people or business to accept anyone.
As you said, the consequence is now we must accept EVERYONE.
I can't believe they didn't realize what they were doing at the time.
I know little about Rand Paul. I do know this:in my opinion, he came across as someone who has yet to be bought and paid for by either party.
That alone, means he is worth watching. Have I decided? No,...but I will be paying attention.
I realize the discussion is about private rights, not states’ rights. But the problem is similar.
I am not a Paul supporter (either of them) based upon their ridiculous distortions of the Founders in regards to foreign policy and their tendency to ‘blame America’ and act as apologists for dictators and terrorists. Yet on this issue I think Paul is getting a bad rap and that we are now seeing another example of conservatives bowing to the left in fear of being called racist.
Were parts of the 64’ Civil Rights Act un-Constitutional? While the answer is debatable, it is certain that the federal government took on a tremendous power grab against individual liberty by being able to dictate to private citizens in their private businesses who they must associate with.
In the case of ending racial discrimination I think the law was righteous but what is not being mentioned at all in context of Paul’s statements is that today the democrats are seeking to use this expansive federal power grab to further dictate to private citizens that they must associate with people’s corrupt sexual behavior as well. So conservatives can denounce Paul’s statements or say that he made a big mistake because the law is settled but it will be at their own peril because the law is not settled. The precedent has been set whereas the federal government could dictate to you how to run your business and to whom you must associate. While yesterday the cause may have been good (to end racial discrimination) tomorrow the cause most certainly is not. The debate on the “right to association” is alive and well and conservatives should think twice before dismissing Paul’s viewpoint out of fear. Homosexuality, transexuality, polygamy, pedophilia, etc…. are all of the things that democrats seek to force people to associate with under the name of civil rights.
I don’t think the trash party understands the Paul family. They don’t go away.
Blackwell makes a point of noting that Paul wasn’t alive when the Act passed. Well, I was, and I think Blackwell should take note of an indisputible fact: race relations in America were a LOT better BEFORE the act passed. In fact, it was AFTER it passed that the major fissures between black and white opened. Maybe it’s a “post hoc ergo propter hoc” argument I’m making, but it is what it is.
I sure hope that Rando has quickly lined up some professional advisors on how to make his points articulately without playing right into the plotting of the 'schlemiels'.
That certainly was not my intent....please accept my compliments.
I think you and I are in fair agreement on this. My understanding of the 1964 civil rights act is that it said you cannot discriminate based on race, period. Now, you may be right that this opens the door to other degenerates such as homosexuals etc... However, the civil rights act makes no mention of deviants, just race. We can fight this battle on it’s merits.
Even in the black community, I do not believe they equate the “rights” of homosexuals the same way they do civil rights. They vote in larger numbers against gay marriage than whites do when its on the ballot.
I can remember the first time I read about the “right to association” on the platform page of a Libertarian website and while I thought it made sense in regards to liberty I ended up rejecting it because of how it would allow for blatant racial discrimination. Now I see how this power can be so grossly abused as to include types of behavior and I seriously rethinking my stand on this. It is a travesty how there is a movement to force companies to have to treat homosexuality and trans-sexuality as equal to heterosexuality. It is already happening all over America. This aspect of the civil rights act is being used to deny people the right to association and the right of having their own moral conscience.
Amen, and anyone who says they were "stumbles" is not helping. BTW, when I he says: "institutional racism" I hear "affirmative action".
Wednesday, May 19, 2010, NPR All Things Considered
Rand Paul, the winner in Tuesday night's Senate primary race in Kentucky, tells Robert Siegel that he has a Tea Party mandate -- a mandate that calls for good government, term limits, and a balanced budget amendment, among other things. He talks about his belief that more issues should be dealt with on a local level rather than on a federal level. ROBERT SIEGEL, host:
One of the Republican winners last night, Rand Paul of Kentucky, can credit his success in part to a third-party movement, the Tea Party.
Dr. RAND PAUL (Republican Senatorial Candidate, Kentucky): I have a message, a message from the Tea Party, a message that is loud and clear and does not mince words. We've come to take our government back.
(Soundbite of cheering)
SIEGEL: That was Rand Paul last night. And he joins us now. Welcome to the program.
Dr. PAUL: Glad to be with you.
SIEGEL: You've run largely on an anti-Washington platform. You spoke of the Tea Party. How faithful a member of the Republican Party do you expect to be if you're elected to the Senate in November?
Dr. PAUL: Well, it's kind of interesting. You know, I went to my first national convention in 1976, when my family supported Reagan over Ford, so we've always been Republicans, but we've always wanted the Republican Party to be the party of fiscally conservative, limited-government types. And I think, sometimes, we haven't done that as well. You know, when Republicans were in charge, we doubled the debt. But, now, our concern is the Democrats are in charge and they're tripling the debt. So, really, our concern is that we want smaller government. We want to avoid some kind of debt crisis, like what's happening in Greece currently.
SIEGEL: You've said that business should have the right to refuse service to anyone, and that the Americans with Disabilities Act, the ADA, was an overreach by the federal government. Would you say the same by extension of the 1964 Civil Rights Act?
Dr. PAUL: hat I've always said is that I'm opposed to institutional racism, and I would've, had I've been alive at the time, I think, had the courage to march with Martin Luther King to overturn institutional racism, and I see no place in our society for institutional racism.
SIEGEL: But are you saying that had you been around at the time, you would have - hoped that you would have marched with Martin Luther King but voted with Barry Goldwater against the 1964 Civil Rights Act?
Dr. PAUL: Well, actually, I think it's confusing on a lot of cases with what actually was in the civil rights case because, see, a lot of the things that actually were in the bill, I'm in favor of. I'm in favor of everything with regards to ending institutional racism. So I think there's a lot to be desired in the civil rights. And to tell you the truth, I haven't really read all through it because it was passed 40 years ago and hadn't been a real pressing issue in the campaign, on whether we're going for the Civil Rights Act.
SIEGEL: But it's been one of the major developments in American history in the course of your life. I mean, do you think the '64 Civil Rights Act or the ADA for that matter were just overreaches and that business shouldn't be bothered by people with the basis in law to sue them for redress?
Dr. PAUL: Right. I think a lot of things could be handled locally. For example, I think that we should try to do everything we can to allow for people with disabilities and handicaps. You know, we do it in our office with wheelchair ramps and things like that. I think if you have a two-story office and you hire someone who's handicapped, it might be reasonable to let him have an office on the first floor rather than the government saying you have to have a $100,000 elevator. And I think when you get to the solutions like that, the more local the better, and the more common sense the decisions are, rather than having a federal government make those decisions.
SIEGEL: How do you feel about the degree of federal involvement in oversight of the mining and oil drilling industries?
Dr. PAUL: I think that most manufacturing and mining should be under the purview of state authorities. It's kind of interesting that, you know, when the EPA was originally instituted, it wasn't even passed by Congress. It was passed as an executive order by Nixon. And I think there is some overreach in the sense that the EPA now says: You know what, if Congress doesn't pass greenhouse emissions regulations or testing, we'll simply do it on our own. I think that's an arrogance of a regulatory body ran amok.
SIEGEL: Well, Rand Paul, just looking ahead to the campaign, now as you look forward to November, what, in a nutshell, do you assume your election campaign is going to be about as you run for the Senate from Kentucky?
Dr. PAUL: Well, I think we have a Tea Party mandate, and that Tea Party mandate is for good-government type of things, things like term limits, things like a balanced budget amendment, things like read the bills for goodness sakes, things like that maybe Congress should only pass legislation that they apply to themselves as well. Also, that each piece of legislation they pass should point to where in the Constitution they get the authority for it.
I think you'll find that these are measures that have great bipartisan support, and so I expect, not only did we do well in the primary, I think we'll win by a wide margin in the fall because we're going to get a lot of independents and conservative Democrats coming to us.
SIEGEL: Well, Rand Paul, thank you very much for talking with us today.
Dr. PAUL: Thank you.
SIEGEL: Rand Paul, who won yesterday's Republican primary in the state of Kentucky. He'll be the candidate to succeed retiring Republican Senator Jim Bunning.
Prime time is not ready for Rand Paul. But it better get ready because Kentucky is going to send him. Most of us Kentukians don't pay attention to the Maddows and MSNBC's of the world. And those of us who do, are outraged and energized to greater aggressive campaigning. Rand Paul is not going to be lynched in Kentucky. Liberal elitism is hoisting itself on it's own petard.
Paul's voters, including myself, have been getting the message all of our lives. We are sending Rand to the Senate. Rand Paul is the voter's message and it's high time that we sent it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.