The REAL story in Rachel Maddow vs. Rand Paul over the 1964 Civil Rights Act is that SHE does not have equality and the Left doesn't care

by CynthiaYockey on May 21, 2010

Here is actress Kelly McGillis, who came out as a lesbian several months ago, from a recent interview — she is about the only lesbian or gay person besides me who is pointing out that the current issue regarding minority rights is that gays and lesbians comprise the ONLY minority that is not equal:

Discrimination against lesbians and gays is not simply a matter of private property rights, it is required by federal law and the laws and/or constitutions of the majority of states.

The acceptance of discrimination against lesbians and gays as a minority by everyone means that everyone, everyone, EVERYONE!!!! missed the REAL story yesterday regarding MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow’s interview with Rand Paul and her question on whether he would support the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Her intent apparently was to use the almost-universal incomprehension of libertarianism to destroy Rand Paul and revive the flagging power of the race card. And certainly Maddow was successful in causing an explosion of comment on the Left and Right in both the blogosphere and mainstream media. On the Left and Right, the commentary had one thing in common that is greatly to their credit: everyone denounced racism, and the argument was about how it is be eliminated or marginalized. However, they ALL also missed the most glaring disconnect in the story: the woman carrying the Left’s water on this issue is a lesbian and she herself has no federal civil rights — absolutely NO ONE sent the argument back to the Left to have them explain how they are going to provide federal equality for lesbians and gays in the remaining months that they will hold the majority in the Congress as well as the presidency.

If we are going to talk about how discrimination should be defeated, we should be having it about how to provide full equality at the federal and state levels for lesbians and gays.

The only reasons being offered to justify the laws that deny lesbians and gays equality boil down to religiously based assertions that we are somehow intrinsically evil and to the claim that only people who make babies deserve equality. Both of these arguments should be anathema to conservatives because they violate both the separation of church and state AND the principle of individual liberty.

I am astonished that the Right is still taking the race bait for the Alinsky-prescribed tactic quoted recently by John Hawkins at Right Wing News in a post featuring the list of Alinsky’s rules for radicals and quotes from Alinsky’s book (boldfacing mine):

The organizer dedicated to changing the life of a particular community must first rub raw the resentments of the people of the community; fan the latent hostilities of many of the people to the point of overt expression. He must search out controversy and issues, rather than avoid them, for unless there is controversy people are not concerned enough to act. — P.116-117

So — the Left feeds pie-in-the-sky to the only minority in the U.S. that not only does NOT have equality, but is burdened with laws to enforce its inequality. Meanwhile, it uses a lesbian, Rachel Maddow, a member of that unequal minority, to rub raw the resentments of black people, who, as a minority, have more laws protecting their equality than any other minority.

Here’s an idea — why don’t we have Rachel Maddow bring Rand Paul back for a discussion of how or whether the libertarian approach to obtaining equality would work in 2010 for lesbians and gays. Get the Left to have THAT discussion — or explain why it still expects lesbians and gays to walk quietly to the back of its bus.


I particularly enjoyed the following posts on Rachel Maddow vs. Rand Paul:

Kathy Shaidle, who has a video clip of Barry Goldwater explaining why he voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act — she shellacks Ann Althouse over property rights and the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

Dafydd Ab Hugh at Hot Air on “The Lizards Defend that Blooming Idiot, Rand Paul“:

But just because one shallow thinker of today [Rand Paul] was unable to defend the liberty position doesn’t make indefensible a principle famously argued by Barry Goldwater in the 1964 presidential election campaign… no matter what Hugh Hewitt says.

It’s hard to nail down exactly what Paul’s position actually is; I think it’s the same as Goldwater’s: Where state or federal policy either directly discriminates on the basis of race or else mandates private racial discrimination, it is absolutely appropriate to pass a federal law overturning such “institutional racialism;” however, such a law should not and constitutionally cannot reach beyond that point to purely private and voluntary racial discrimination, which (alas) the final version of the Act did.

That’s why Goldwater voted against it after having supported earlier versions that did not outlaw private, volunatry discrimination; and fair warning, that is my objection to the Act, as well.

Stacy McCain at The Other McCain — if you want to know the history of a political issue, he’s the man. Stacy embeds the video of the interview and links Dave Weigel, who has the transcript and additional discussion. I helped lead the counter-attack last year when Stacy was being falsely accused of racism. I thought his behavior under this assault personified class, decency and intelligence. So Stacy’s advice on how to respond to the race card is deeply informed by experience:

Turn the enemy’s attack against him — rhetorical ju-jitsu. A static defense, a stubborn insistence that you are right, is not nearly so effective as the counterattack that shows your opponent is wrong.

Rachel Maddow and the Left in general are attempting to limit the scope of debate and define the terms to their own advantage, so that they get to decide who is or is not a “racist.” Americans are sick and tired of seeing accusations of racism tossed around willy-nilly like this, and if Rand Paul would confront this tactic head-on — exposing as invalid the rhetorical gamesmanship involved — he would emerge fromn the fight as a hero to many Kentucky voters, especially independents and conservative-leaning Democrats.

Rather than whining or acting defensively indignant (“How dare you call me a racist!”), focus the counterattack on the Left’s dishonest tactic of defining “racism” in a way that shuts off meaningful political debate and categorically stigmatizes conservatives.

Prof. William Jacobson of Legal Insurrection explains his own position and concludes with the following:

But I do also think there is enormous hypocrisy here, because it is Democrats who perpetuate institutionalized race-based discrimination through affirmative action programs which include the color of one’s skin as part of the decision-making process. This may be legal in certain circumstances, and may even be desirable to remedy historical imbalances, but it is discrimination nonetheless.

The irony is that it is Republicans and Tea Partiers who hold most true to Martin Luther King, Jr.’s dream of a nation where people were not judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.

But you wouldn’t know it to read Memeorandum yesterday.

Follow conservativelez on Twitter

Amy May 21, 2010 at 11:27 pm

Damn it, the lesbians win again.

Joking aside, she is as cute as a baby’s bottom…awesome to see her, I loved her so dearly growing up. Oddly enough, I had a convo tonight with a dear friend (and here I take a page from your book, Cynthia…I will never again call someone dear unless I mean it) who got all over my ass about some FB stuff, you know how that goes. We got to apologizing all over each other and I explained to her that even though I’m a conservative I’m very pro marriage equality and I gave credit to you (though I did tell her that her open and proud marriage helped). Dude! She was all like, “Yea, I’ve aware of her. I don’t agree with a lot of what she says, but I did try to read her non-political stuff.”

I totally forget my point.

Cynthia Yockey May 22, 2010 at 12:30 am



Well, what fun your lesbian friend has read my blog. I wonder if she avoids ALL my political posts, including the ones that would give her the conservative arguments in favor of gay equality, or just the ones that would educate her about Obama and the Left and have the intention of immunizing all my gentle readers against Obama’s lies and winning the liberal/Leftist ones to the glories of capitalism, small government and individual liberty?

Oh, and I just realized you meant Kelly McGillis is the one you loved so dearly growing up — not Rachel Maddow. In the 1990’s I think it was, Margaret and I got to see Ms. McGillis perform in Washington, D.C., in one of the “Shakespeare Free for All” performances, although I can’t remember which play right now. She is tall and has a commanding stage presence — there is something so satisfying to the heart in watching her perform. It would be wonderful to see her revive her acting career by creating a one-woman show a la Eve Ensler, or writing a play in which she could play the heroine, perhaps based on her own self-acceptance and coming out story. She has things to say that deserve to be heard and DO have an audience. In fact, I believe she has stories to tell that will change the lives of many people who see them for the better, and even save some lives. I hope to goodness she has a Google Alert set for her name and reads this and is inspired to create a project along these lines. What do you think?


Liz May 22, 2010 at 11:17 am

B-b-but, Cynthia, if they give equality to LGBTs, then they’d lose knee jerk votes! And have to be judged on things like their economic and educational policies! Plus, they’d have to, y’know, stop hating gay people, and stand up to the people who do hate us…That’s just kuh-RAY-zee.

I’ve long since realized that equality for gay people will never come from the left. It’s why they’re flogging the dead horse of race. It’s all they have, and someone – anyone – needs to call them out on it. As soon as the right gets its finger out, the left will lose their gay voters, as well as their supporters and friends. I for one cannot wait.

Cynthia Yockey May 22, 2010 at 4:43 pm


I love your comment! You are quite right — equality for gay people will never come from the Left.

I began to realize lesbians and gays were being treated like captive constituents by the Left in the spring of 2008 because where were we going to go? To the evil Right — muahahahahaha? I took a dim view of being treated like a slave, of being promised reciprocity from other minorities and getting cheated and having the Left’s constituencies that hate women, gays and Jews exalted. And waddaya know — now I’m ensconced on the Right busily explaining to my old friends on the Left why and how to free themselves and to the Right, the advantages of welcoming them into the big tent.

One of the themes I will be developing this year is that the racial policies of the Left, including their teachings of intractable helplessness that requires perpetual government assistance, have resulted in a holocaust of talent and unfulfilled life potential among their constituencies. I look forward to hearing your opinion.


Amy May 22, 2010 at 4:29 pm

I think it’s a great idea. I seem to recall she went through an abusive marriage, and I’ll bet you a Coke her struggle with her own sexuality led to some pretty bad choices via good old self-doubt. I think she’s a talented and beautiful woman and I’d love to hear more from her.

My friend has it in her head that conservative = racist, intolerant, etc. She claims to be middle of the road, but this recent episode has proven differently. Our disagreement stemmed from me making a supportive comment about her heartache over the Malawi gay couple that was sentenced to prison ( a truly heartbreaking situation) that then deteriorated when another commenter bashed America and I flared up. She stated that I am not fooling anyone with my support, since I post a lot of conservative stuff on my wall. We conservatives have a loooong way to go in disabusing people of the notion that we are all racist xenophobic gay-bashers.

She called you a “talking-head”, btw! You should totally go kick her butt except she’s like the minority tri-fecta: gay, black and female. She obviously hasn’t really read a lot of you, nor any other conservative site…a mistake I make in the opposite direction, as you will rarely catch me on a lefty blog.

P.S.- I actually think Rachel is pretty darn cute herownself.

Cynthia Yockey May 22, 2010 at 5:19 pm


Refer your friend to Baldilocks, who is black, straight, female and conservative and is now in my newsfeed. I met her this year at CPAC and she totally rocks. Also refer her to Afrocity of Autographed Letter Signed — who is black, female, conservative, in my newsfeed — although I don’t remember whether Afrocity is straight or lesbian.

About the conservative = racist, rich, selfish, etc. and its corollary, liberal = all-acceptance, all-benevolence, I have figured out a good way to sort that out and debunk it in a way that lets people move towards fiscal conservatism. I’ve got to put it in my book and also into a YouTube video.

The time has come to be fearless about pushing back against the race card. I’m in a position to take the lead because the black community promised the gay community reciprocity for our support back in the Rainbow Coalition days, but they reneged on the deal and now they are one of the biggest enemies of gay equality and freely express hatred towards gays. And just as “banker” is a code word haters use for “Jew,” “gay” is a code word black haters use for “white.” The helplessness the Left preaches has destroyed millions of lives and cost the world the contribution these people would have made if they had had to make the most of themselves, regardless of whether the world is fair or just. I wouldn’t kick your friend’s butt because that will just make her cling to her position more. Since I write to win hearts and minds, I write to attract liberals/Lefties to the Right by doing my best to illuminate for them the pickle they are in, so they can recognize it and relate to what I’m saying, then I extol the glories of fiscal conservatism and liberty so they are motivated to trade up.

Regarding Rachel Maddow, pretty much every sentence I say to her in my head starts, “Young lady!”


Attmay May 23, 2010 at 12:25 pm

Leftists (I refuse to call them “liberals”) are not “pro-gay”, nor are they “pro-Jewish” or “pro-black”. Gays, Jews, and blacks are merely tools to them in their war on individual liberties that benefit all people of all races, religions and sexual orientations.

Cynthia Yockey May 23, 2010 at 5:07 pm


I think you would enjoy Robin of Berkeley’s May 20, 2010, piece at American Thinker, which uses two of her friends to personify the distinctions between “liberal” and “Leftist”: Why the Chosen People Chose Obama. I switched from calling everyone on the Left “Leftists” and “Lefties” after reading it, although I’ll probably go back.

I agree with your comment. You are quite right the Left is waging war on individual liberties. However, I think Jamie Glazov has done the best job of explaining the most fundamental goal of the Left in his book, United in Hate, which applies the insights of Eric Hoffer’s The True Believer to our contemporary world: the Left wants to destroy capitalism because they believe we will then return to a utopian, primitive society. I would add that Leftists want to destroy capitalism because it is a system in which they have failed, or cannot succeed to the level their grandiosity demands, and they can only rid themselves of the shame by destroying the system that shames them. The distinction I make between liberals and Leftists is that Leftists KNOW they want to destroy capitalism, while liberals think capitalism and socialism can co-exist and that it is more moral to give someone a fish and punish them viciously for every fish they catch on their own than it is to inspire and require everyone who CAN fish to do so and reward them in proportion to how well they do it. (An example of vicious punishment is that Medicaid is means-tested, so if you get a job that doesn’t have health insurance or pay enough for you to buy it on your own, you will lose your Medicaid health insurance.)

What are your thoughts on how to win gays, women, Jews and blacks to fiscal conservatism? (The Left also makes war on women.)


Matthew May 26, 2010 at 6:31 pm

I have wondered for a long time now why no one seems to be aware that the current discrimination against homosexuals marrying is also government sanctioned and government enforced. Marriage licenses are a result of the now discredited (liberal) eugenics movement of the early 1900s and have a very racist history. Licenses were designed (by governments) to keep the races “pure” by preventing interracial marriage (among other things). Today the government still uses them to prevent marriages it doesn’t approve of, although the targets of discrimination have changed. Even for non homosexuals, they are a nuisance — basically a tax and an intrusion into the privacy of citizens. The answer is to abolish marriage licenses altogether. We don’t need them. No one need permission from the state to marry. People say this will never happen, but maybe that’s just because everyone is talking about amending license laws. But why amend them? Just abolish them. This seems (to me at least) like an argument that even hetrosexuals with no interest in the gay rights debate could get behind.

Comments on this entry are closed.

{ 1 trackback }

Previous post:

Next post: