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 ...
>> When the Left decides to destroy you, truth or reality or naivety never has anything to do with it.
You don’t need to HELP them by going on Rachel Maddow’s show, for goodness’ sake!
Rick Santorum and Trent Lott at least weren’t THAT stupid.
Personally, I think Paul (if he survives to win in Nov.) will turn out to be a giant thorn in the GOP paw, but I don’t blame him for this.
>> Personally, I think Paul (if he survives to win in Nov.) will turn out to be a giant thorn in the GOP paw
If Paul wins, and he toes the conservative line, I don’t really care if he irritates the GOP elites.
I’m just concerned that he’ll do other dumb stuff once he gets to Washington. He’s not proving himself to be too bright or politically astute, and you can bet both the ‘Rats AND the GOP will be setting traps for him right and left. Pun intended.
It doesn't matter. Once you set the precident of giving government the jurisdiction to do ONE thing, no matter how noble......
it then has jurisdiction to do EVERYTHING whether it's noble or not.
Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master.
- George Washington
This is likely, but in no way as big a thorn as Snowe, Collins, Graham, McQueeg, et. al. already are. I do make the huge assumption that Rand is not Ron.
Rand Paul was a volunteer on this, not a victim.
I agree totally with your every word. As usual.
Depends what the states or individuals want to do. Most things are fine; a few things are not.
No, you can’t make anyone love anyone else by legislation. Hark. I remember this from the sixties. Still rattling around, is it? It’s an extension of the mindset that allowed slavery. Instead of making you work for no money, I’m going to keep you from working for money. Maybe you had to be there.
I'm not broadly interpreting anything. Don't try that projection mess with me.
Laws ARE meant to be narrowly defined, I'll agree.
Please show me the Constitutional provision that gives government the jurisdiction to keep us all equal.
LOL!
That's no kind of answer. Were the power there, you would be able to locate it...but you cannot.
What are you saying, that we all aren’t equal before the law? I’m not saying that rich people don’t get treated differently, but in theory, in the U.S. that is how it should be and how laws are written. Citizen A should be treated the same as citizen B in regards to the law.
I don’t even know how we got on this subject or how it pertains to Rand Paul screwing up while answering a question of the 1964 civil rights. And if you don’t think he didn’t screw up, then why has he been backtracking ever since?
Being equal before the law means your treated the same IN a court of law....it doesn't mean government gets to impose it's own definition of 'equality'.
You're trying to give one person a nonexistent right to be treated equally by infringing on someone elses absolute right to property....and that's unconstitutional.
By equality, in a democracy, is to be understood, equality of civil rights, and not of condition. Equality of rights necessarily produces inequality of possessions; because, by the laws of nature and of equality, every man has a right to use his faculties, in an honest way, and the fruits of his labour, thus acquired, are his own. But, some men have more strength than others; some more health; some more industry; and some more skill and ingenuity, than others; and according to these, and other circumstances the products of their labour must be various, and their property must become unequal. The rights of property must be sacred, and must be protected; otherwise there could be no exertion of either ingenuity or industry, and consequently nothing but extreme poverty, misery, and brutal ignorance.
View of the Constitution of the United States
You either believe in the Constitution as it's written, or you believe it's a 'living document'.
There is no middle ground, IMHO.
-----
I don’t even know how we got on this subject or how it pertains to Rand Paul screwing up while answering a question of the 1964 civil rights.
Because you posted it has nothing to with cross-dressers and I illustrated how power is power as far as government's concerned, so they're pretty much one and the same.
-----
And if you don’t think he didn’t screw up, then why has he been backtracking ever since?
Gee....I dunno. Why don't you ask him?
Maybe because he was being vilified by people who can't be bothered to understand what he's talking about.
So, you turn to the race card.... Oppositional Defiant Dissorder is a difficult illness to cure....but I have faith that you'll pull through.
DeMint disappointed me. I thought he would have backed Rand Paul. Rand was simply saying what Barry Goldwater said in 1964—that only gubermint should be barred from being racially biased in any direction for any reason.
God forbid a republican ever stand on principle.
F’N limpwristed GimpOldParty.
I like the phrase Democrat Jim Crow Laws.
Most of the south had only Democrat governors for 100 years post reconstruction.
I did a little wikipedia research on this
Democrat Governors in the south
Georgia 1872 - 2003
Mississippi 1876 - 1992
Alabama 1874 - 1987
Louisiana 1877 - 1980
Arkansas 1874 - 1967
Texas 1874 - 1979
South Carolina 1876 - 1975
These segregationist Jim Crow laws are truly Democrat Jim Crow Laws.
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.