Would be Kentucky Senator Rand Paul has hit back at a desperate
and sustained mainstream media attempt to smear him as a racist
extremist following his historic primary victory earlier this
week.
Paul appeared on ABC's
Good Morning America today to make it clear that
the attacks against him regarding views he expressed on the
Civil Rights Act, which we covered in our article
yesterday, are "red herrings" and part
of an establishment effort to "trash" his campaign.
"I've just been trashed up and down and they have been
saying things that are untrue. And when they say I'm for repealing
the Civil Rights Act, it's absolutely false. It's never been
my position and something that I basically just think is politics."
Paul said.
Following Paul's initial appearance on Wednesday's Rachel Maddow
program, during which the MSNBC host suggested Paul would tolerate
racial segregation because he opposes federal government regulation,
the cable network devoted a full day of coverage to the same
talking point.
Despite Paul's repeated statements that he did not tolerate
discrimination or racism in any form, and that he supported
the Civil Rights Act in totality, MSNBC wheeled out its liberal
attack dogs in the form of Jesse Jackson, Democratic Congressman
James Clyburn, liberal professors Boyce Watkins and Michael
Eric Dyson and Democratic strategist Karen Finney. The network
aired
eight different segments totaling 37 minutes, without
a single guest to defend Rand Paul's position or provide any
balance whatsoever.
Yesterday Paul's opponent in the Senate race, Kentucky Attorney
General Jack Conway, now lagging behind Paul by a whopping 25
points according to a Rasmussen
survey, claimed
that Paul had said he wanted to "repeal"
the Civil Rights Act, a blatantly false accusation that prompted
Paul to issue a corrective statement. Ridiculously, Paul had
to clarify that he did not wish to repeal the Civil Rights Act:
"Even though this matter was settled when I was 2, and
no serious people are seeking to revisit it except to score
cheap political points, I unequivocally state that I will not
support any efforts to repeal the Civil Rights Act of 1964."
Paul's statement read.
"Let me be clear: I support the Civil Rights Act because
I overwhelmingly agree with the intent of the legislation, which
was to stop discrimination in the public sphere and halt the
abhorrent practice of segregation and Jim Crow laws. As I have
said in previous statements, sections of the Civil Rights Act
were debated on Constitutional grounds when the legislation
was passed. Those issues have been settled by federal courts
in the intervening years." the statement concluded.
Despite Paul's statement, the smear machine went into overdrive
and even led to comments
from White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs,
who said "I think the issues that, that many fought for
in the ‘50s and the ‘60s were settled a long time
ago in landmark legislation and the discussion about whether
or not to support those, I don’t think, shouldn’t
have a place in our political dialogue in 2010."
The LA
Times devoted its front page to the smear attack,
meanwhile, Organizing
for America, an Obama campaign group run by the
Democratic National Committee began emailing thousands of people
on it's mailing list in an effort to convince them that Rand
Paul supports segregation and that there should be a "massive
public outcry".
Late yesterday afternoon, Sen. John Cornyn (Tex.), chairman
of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, also issued
a statement, noting that "It is apparent that the Democrats
are trying to twist Rand Paul's words and create an issue that
does not exist because they are rightfully worried that he is
leading Jack Conway,".
A fired up Paul hit out further at the establishment left's
political smear campaign on Good Morning America today:
"If you want to bring up 40-year-old legislation, why
don't you bring me on with Sen. [Robert] Byrd, and we'll talk
about how he filibustered the Civil Rights Act," Paul said
of the 92-year-old West Virginia Democrat. "Make him, call
him to task for something he actually did as opposed to calling
me to task for something they insinuated that I might believe
that's not true."
"What is going on here is an attempt to vilify us for
partisan reasons. Where do your talking points come from? The
Democratic National Committee, they also come from Rachel Maddow
and MSNBC." he added.
Watch the video:
Rand Paul's father, Congressman Ron Paul, defended his son
on Thursday, describing the smear attacks as "overkill".
"I don't think he has anything to recover from,"
the elder Paul said in comments
reported by Politico. "Get out there and talk
to the people ... You're talking about recovery. That's an insult."
Ron Paul also refused to comment on his views on the constitutionality
of the powers granted to the federal government in the area
of civil rights, noting that his comments would only be taken
out of context and used to further smear his son. Instead he
pointed to a chapter in his forthcoming book in which he addresses
the matter.
Historian Tom Woods, who has contributed to Ron Paul's best-selling
books, addresses
the smear campaign using concise and eloquent language:
The Left is going after Rand Paul over the 1964 Civil Rights
Act. Why, Rand Paul secretly wants to repeal it, they say,
which means we’d have segregated restaurants all over
again. Now any non-hysteric knows a segregated restaurant
would be boycotted and picketed out of existence within ten
seconds, but we’re supposed to fret about fictional
outcomes from the repeal of a law that will never be repealed.
And certainly we cannot question the 1964 Act, since our betters
have decided the matter is closed.
Of course, someone might have objected to that Act on the
grounds that it would of course lead to affirmative action,
since racially proportionate hiring is the only practical
way to prove one has not been “discriminating.”
One might also object to the law on constitutional grounds,
or on the grounds that (as has indeed happened) it would lead
to legally protected classes whose members simply cannot be
fired, since their employers know they will be hit with groundless
but costly and time-consuming litigation. (Incidentally, black
employment statistics saw far more progress in the one year
before the 1964 Act than in the two years after it.)
As the Left sees it, none of these reasonable concerns can
be the “real reason” for opposition to the 1964
Act. The real motivation is (what else?) a sinister and arbitrary
desire to oppress blacks and other minorities for no good
reason. The Left’s opponents are always and everywhere
wicked and twisted people, who spend their time wondering
how they can cause gratuitous harm to black people they have
never met. Don’t believe me? Read the comments to this
Politico article. These people have never in their lives
deviated from what Official Opinion has demanded they believe.
Without federal guns, we’d be back in the Dark Ages.
The Left has its bogeymen and the neocons have theirs. The
outcome is always the same: more power to the monopolists
with the guns, and the unshakeable conviction that peaceful
remedies are impossible.
Leading
Libertarians have lauded Rand Paul, noting that
his stance is at the core of Libertarian philosophy. True liberty
requires a society in which all people can live and thrive without
coercion from controlling forces such as the federal government.
Such core principles the are at the foundation of the U.S.
Constitution.
George Washington said "Government is not reason; it is
not eloquence. It is force. And force, like fire, is a dangerous
servant and a fearful master."
Should racial discrimination be overcome by reason or by force?
This notion is at the heart of Rand Paul's stance on civil
rights. Those who equate this notion with racist beliefs are
either intellectually incapable of grasping it or are purposefully
seeking to defame those who embrace it.
Instead of running to the federal government for protection
from and a quick fix to everything that is socially reprehensible,
it is time for all of the afore mentioned detractors - from
Maddow, through all her minions at MSNBC and their zombie choir
- to look at the bigger picture, to wake up, grow up, break
out of their pre programmed political paradigm.
Without such an awakening, discrimination and divisions will
always exist and will always be taken advantage of by those
who seek to control our society.
