I won’t even bother to link this nonsense, but we’ve all seen in the last several days the issue surrounding Rand Paul and his comments regarding the 1964 civil rights act. You remember, the bill that the Republicans rammed through and Democrats fought against back in the day? Yeah that one. Well, anyway, let me start my commentary on this matter by stating my own position:

Is it both hunky and dory for Woolworth’s Lunch Counter to decline to serve minorities?


But in truth, I don’t consider that Rand Paul, as much of a nutball as I consider him to be,  is saying it’s OK, either.

What Rand Paul is saying here, …. and I think, correctly…  is that there is no constitutional basis for the government to be a solution to that particular issue. That’s a firm, and fairly clear cut, small government, libertarian stand, not particularly a racist one.  The trouble for liberals is they can’t argue the point on the merits of it, or their lack of them. So they break out the label gun.

Understand me here… In the liberal lexicon there’s very few charges that are considered worse than ‘racist’. And the left uses this charge every time they have no other tools to bring to bear.  The  pattern is so predictable as to be laughable. Whenever someone comes out against government programs for this or that minority, anyone who questions them is labeled a racist before the echo from the question dies.

Now… that Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele isn’t comfortable with the views expressed by Rand Paul is understandable and an example of what I’ve been saying about what is wrong with the Republican party for some time now.  They’ve fallen victim to the ‘cultural outcome’ perspective rather than the constitutional perspective. Which is perhaps why the government- imposed ‘solution’ of the civil rights act of ’64 was pushed by the Republicans back in the day.

As to the success or failure of such government-based attitudes about minorities, Steel should perhaps look at the long-term implication of our government only wanting to help the American Indian.  Those well meaning, yet disastrous results are of a piece with what has since happened with the American Black, the American Hispanic and so on.  This is exactly why our founders never gave government the right and responsibility of such programs, within the confines of the constitutional government they left us..

What needed to be changed was not government, but minds. Consider the worse of the sage:

“Well, they passed a lack back in 64

to give those who ain’t got a little more

But it only goes so far

‘Cause the law don’t change another’s mind

when all he sees at the hiring time

is a line on a colored bar”

But I suppose I’ll be called a racist for pointing these things out.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

5 Responses to “Rand Paul And the Civil Rights Act of ’64”

  1. A lot of morons, like Rachel Maddow, can not get through their thick little skulls that a citizen’s private actions are not any of the state’s business.  For his part, Rand Paul was somewhat familiar with the provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1064.  For her part, Maddow could not get past the nation that the state should the power to ban private actions of which she does not approve.

    Dr Walter E. Williams has a description of a free economy, mutually voluntary transactions.  In a free society, I, as the proprietor of Dave’s Dinner, have the right to serve or not serve Martin Luther King as I alone see fit.  For his part, Dr. King has the right to patronize or noit patronize my dinner as he alone sees fit.  Both myself and Dr. King have the the right to agree or not agree/not offer and to accept/not accept the proposed transaction, to wit lunch.

    The maddening thing about Maddow  is she kept describing the transaction as private, but kept insisting the state had some magic power to regulate it anyhow.

  2. Since the government is required to enforce trespass law, which was invoked routinely to enforce rules of segregation, the government is already engaged in the issue.  What the Civil Rights Bill did was to allow the government to enforce non-discrimination rather than discrimination.  Ms Maddow was absolutely on target with her questions, which were civil and genuine.  Mr. Paul evaded them because he could see the situation his own views had created, and he didn’t want to admit it. 

  3. Rachel Maddow is an idiot.  In her fantasy world, the state has some mythical obligation to force me to sell lunch to Dr. King.  That is in the World according to Maddow, Dr. King has the right to patronize Dave’s Dinner or not,.  Whereas I have utterly no right to decide to serve King or not.

    Call that what you will, According Dr. Walter E. Williams’ view, of which opined in the my previous reply, that is not economic freedom.   Dr.  King has a right to choose, where I have none.

    In a free society, the state has no business intruding into private transactions.   Twits like Maddow simply do not believe in freedom.  Do you?

  4. Government needs to stay out of our lives.Like Rand , Libertarians believe that the government shouldn’t interfere where individuals rights are concerned.Libertarians believe that you and I have the personal right to:1. take drugs2. pay for a prostitute3. view child pornography ..or any pornographic material4. have an abortion5. burn the American flag6. have sex in public7. run a gambling casino out of my own house.8. marry more than one wife.9. drink alcohol at whatever age I choose10.tell a black man to that I will only provide medical treatment to white people


  1. Choosing A Healthy Business Opportunity | money making blog