Yesterday, we noted that notable token/man without honor Michael “Rochester” Steele refused to condemn a remark Kland Paul made about the Civil rights Act being a bad thing for “freedom” (giving the word “freedom” a new meaning that only Lester Maddox, George Wallace, and Kland Paul would fully understand.) But Steele isn’t the only one stepping up to the plate for the wannabe senator from the not-so-great State of Denial. As it happens, famous Klanbagger activist/corporate tool Dick Armey also approves of what Paul says. Yes, he tried a little mealy-mouthing to defend his position, but his white-sheet support base will understand perfectly what he means.

And these are the people that the MSM assures us are going to own the whole damn thing come November. Hopefully, the MSM will continue to trumpet this, since it is without a doubt an excellent wake-up call for those who may be thinking of sitting out this election.

Speaking on Fox News this morning, former GOP House Majority Leader and Tea Party profiteer Dick Armey falsely claimed that Republican Kentucky Senate candidate Rand Paul’s opposition to the federal ban on whites’-only lunch counters is something much more benign:

ARMEY: [H]e says I am for the civil rights amendment; I am for civil rights. But had I been in the Senate, I would have examined the constitutional issues related to some provisions of the act. Is a senator not supposed to examine the constitutional provisions of a complex law under consideration?

KILMEADE: Right. Gotcha.

ARMEY: Now, the fact of the matter is the guy’s getting, he’s getting harangued unreasonably for what is in fact the reasonable expression of I would have done my duty as an elected senator had I been in the Senate at that time.

For the record, Armey’s claim that Paul was merely explaining that he would examine a law for constitutional problems before supporting it is false. In Paul’s lengthy interview with Rachel Maddow, he stated that he supports only “nine out of ten” parts of the Civil Rights Act, and that he would “modify” the law to accommodate his opposition to the provisions governing private actors. Lest there be any doubt about Paul’s opposition to laws prohibiting discrimination by private institutions, in a 2002 letter to the editor Paul unambiguously stated that a “free society” will maintain “the distinction between private and public property” by “abid[ing] unofficial, private discrimination — even when that means allowing hate-filled groups to exclude people based on the color of their skin.”

Even if his claims about Paul’s views were accurate, Armey’s statement that there are “constitutional issues” with the Civil Rights Act of 1964 not only places him in the lunatic fringe today, it also represented a fringe view when the Act became law more than 45 years ago.

President Johnson signed the Act into law on July 2, 1964. Less than six months later — a shockingly fast pace for major litigation — the Supreme Court handed down two unanimous decisions upholding the law against constitutional challenges. Likewise, outside of the eleven former Confederate states — where opposition to the Act was driven entirely by support for segregation — over 90 percent of Congress voted in favor of the law. A tiny handful of non-Jim Crow members of Congress did raise constitutional concerns about the law, but these fringe lawmakers cut against the unanimous view of the Supreme Court and the nearly-unanimous views of non-southern lawmakers.

It amazes me, although it shouldn’t, that we’re having THIS discussion in 2010.

Now, would any Klanbagger care to defend what’s being done here? Would anyone like to deny that the foundation plank of the Klanbaggers is, and will continue to be, racism? In my opinion, all doubt as to this has been removed.

Tweet this via