What did Rand Paul actually say? Via Red State:
...the media and left are out saying Rand Paul would have opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
He never said he would have voted against the Civil Rights Act. In fact, he said he supported key provisions in the Civil Rights Act.
Here is the relevant portion of the transcript:
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: What 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 [act]. 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.
You can agree or disagree, but there is nothing about his position that is racist. But of course that didn't stop the MSM from saying that opposition to Obamacare is racist or that calling him socialist is racist, or that protesting out of control spending is racist.
What we have learned, is that if you disagree with anything that the left is jamming down our throats, you are racist.
From Hot Air:
America’s leftists... have long considered it wrong for those on the right to oppose central government action on the principle of limiting the federal government to enumerated powers. But in the decades of my life, this point of contention has shifted from an honest political debate to the enforcement of a religious doctrine. No longer are logical arguments made from the left. Partisans of the left’s point of view merely express reflexive horror, demonize those making the limited-government argument, and invoke the horrible problem – whatever it is (or was) – as the evidence that it is essentially satanic to oppose doing the thing they propose to do about it. Logical and temperate discourse has no place in this dynamic; it is reminiscent mainly of fire-and-brimstone demagoguery.
This is not just a dangerous way to make law, it’s a way that must inevitably lead to greater and greater overreach. Nothing we do, nothing we are is protected from the federal government if we sit still for these elisions and ellipses in our observance of constitutional limits. Most of the first ten Amendments can be effectively abrogated – and the abrogation called due process of law – by the exercise of the “authority to regulate interstate commerce,” or by findings based on “privacy” and the Fourteenth Amendment, or by the exercise of eminent domain.
Letting the federal government overreach in its application of these concepts, first in one instance and then in another and another, is what has led to the individual purchase mandate for health insurance and the other assumptions of federal authority in Obamacare. Under the Obama executive and the current Congress, every effort is being made to extend that authority far beyond what most Americans consider appropriate, from centrally regulating the thermostat in your home to forcing the internet into the “common carrier” model of television and radio, so that content can be regulated by virtual channelization and access- or broadcast-licensing procedures. (Bloggers, that means you.)
Tacit, unexamined acceptance of federal authority to do these things is what Rand Paul is challenging. In 2010, he is the one asking people to think, rather than to merely repeat doctrinaire talking points taught to them since birth. His critics, on the other hand, sound like nothing so much as children reciting a catechism, and tsk-tsk-ing over those who don’t recite it in exactly the same way. That includes many of his critics on the right – who have agreed to be governed by a list of pieties that makes effective dissent from the left’s religious doctrine impossible.
As I have said before, The First Church of Fundamentalist Leftism IS a religion and one that is being increasingly enforced as a state religion, while all others (Islam possibly excepted) are silenced under the "freedom FROM religion" misreading of the Constitution's "freedom OF religion."
Any dissent from the one, true State religion, especially by them dang "Bible-clinging" idiots, must be crushed. No wonder the left doesn't get so bent over Islamofascism. Birds of a feather.