Civil Rights Act

On July 3, 2004, Ron Paul was the only Congressman to vote against a bill hailing the 40th anniversary of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. In this speech to Congress, Ron Paul courageously spoke out on the often controversial issues of race relations and affirmative action. He explained why the Civil Right Act had failed to achieve its stated goals of promoting racial harmony and a color-blind society.

Ron Paul: Mr. Speaker, I rise to explain my objection to H.Res. 676. I certainly join my colleagues in urging Americans to celebrate the progress this country has made in race relations. However, contrary to the claims of the supporters of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the sponsors of H.Res. 676, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not improve race relations or enhance freedom. Instead, the forced integration dictated by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 increased racial tensions while diminishing individual liberty.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 gave the federal government unprecedented power over the hiring, employee relations, and customer service practices of every business in the country. The result was a massive violation of the rights of private property and contract, which are the bedrocks of free society. The federal government has no legitimate authority to infringe on the rights of private property owners to use their property as they please and to form (or not form) contracts with terms mutually agreeable to all parties. The rights of all private property owners, even those whose actions decent people find abhorrent, must be respected if we are to maintain a free society.

This expansion of federal power was based on an erroneous interpretation of the congressional power to regulate interstate commerce. The framers of the Constitution intended the interstate commerce clause to create a free trade zone among the states, not to give the federal government regulatory power over every business that has any connection with interstate commerce.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 not only violated the Constitution and reduced individual liberty; it also failed to achieve its stated goals of promoting racial harmony and a color-blind society. Federal bureaucrats and judges cannot read minds to see if actions are motivated by racism. Therefore, the only way the federal government could ensure an employer was not violating the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was to ensure that the racial composition of a business’s workforce matched the racial composition of a bureaucrat or judge’s defined body of potential employees. Thus, bureaucrats began forcing employers to hire by racial quota. Racial quotas have not contributed to racial harmony or advanced the goal of a color-blind society. Instead, these quotas encouraged racial balkanization, and fostered racial strife.

Of course, America has made great strides in race relations over the past forty years. However, this progress is due to changes in public attitudes and private efforts. Relations between the races have improved despite, not because of, the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, while I join the sponsors of H.Res. 676 in promoting racial harmony and individual liberty, the fact is the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not accomplish these goals. Instead, this law unconstitutionally expanded federal power, thus reducing liberty. Furthermore, by prompting raced-based quotas, this law undermined efforts to achieve a color-blind society and increased racial strife. Therefore, I must oppose H.Res. 676.

  • Black Order

    Rights are natural, inalienable, inherent in all.

    Government has no say in the matter.

    There is no such thing as “Civil” rights.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 5

    • Mike

      Well, that’s simply incorrect. Government by its nature has a say in the matter for those who fall under its jurisdiction. Representative government, to which I subscribe as the most legitimate form, is essentially a compact among the governed established, generally, over a specific geographic area. As such, those governed, through their due process, determine what rights are reserved to individuals. These are called civil rights. They may be derived from the body politic’s perception of “natural rights,” “human rights,” or whatever, but their application via the system of government is what makes them practicable.

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 12

      • Black Order

        Rights cannot be given nor taken away. They are inherent and inalienable.

        They exist independent of governance.

        Whether government recognizes them or not, they exist, thus government has no say.

        If anything, government by it’s very nature is a violation of rights as law is predicated upon coercion and violence.

        The fallacy in representative governance is that everyone cannot be represented simultaneously. Someone always loses out. Someone is always being forced to live as another dictates by proxy of representative government.

        How is this legitimate?

        Highly rated. What do you think? Thumb up 18 Thumb down 3

        • Ryan

          our nation was legit. in fact, it was too legit. it was too legit to quit. but now, it’s not legit. it’s un-legit.

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 6

  • Michelle

    I’ve always found the affirmative action idea interesting when thinking back to Martin Luther King Jr’s speech about people “not being judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character”……Affirmative action judges people by skin color, not by character content.

    Isn’t affirmative action now like reverse racism??? It was necessary at the time of implementation, but it doesn’t seem to serve the current needs of America’s workforce.

    Highly rated. What do you think? Thumb up 36 Thumb down 9

    • Sherry

      Michelle,
      There is no such same as reverse racism. What would that be? No racism at all? racism can be against any race.

      Highly rated. What do you think? Thumb up 23 Thumb down 4

  • Jared

    The founding fathers certainly took away the liberty of others when it came to race relations, many of them were after all slave owners. Although I do agree with the constitution some things like this defense are a bit awkward. Early Americans violated the liberties of others more than anyone has done since.

    Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 28 Thumb down 19

    • SCOTT

      Granted, there were many instances in addition to slavery where the founders failed to act in a spirit of true individual liberty. At the Constitution’s writing there were those that abhorred the idea of slavery, some of which executed the document. Fortunately for us they were visionary enough to have created a living document and not a static one.

      It is proof that we are men of our time. Looking back from our current perspectives, it is hard now (I hope) to understand how such travesties could occur. It should give each of us pause to consider that our position on such issues today be reasoned and principled. I can understand that there are many, that wrestle with RP’s position. I have reconciled this by reflecting upon the core concept that the individual is the ultimate civil authority and that government has no authority to impose upon an individual’s right to life, liberty and/or property so long as that individual has not violated his neighbor’s rights. This unfortunately infers that an individual may hold beliefs that are absolutely abhorrent to us, but it is the first principle of the philosophy of individualism.

      Highly rated. What do you think? Thumb up 13 Thumb down 1

    • WAB

      @Jared… so two wrongs make a right and you want to compare world values and attitudes in 1776 to those in 1964? I see what you are saying, but I don’t understand what it has to do with post-emancipation America. Help me understand.

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1

  • Christine

    “Organic” food is no longer safe. The FDA and USDA have colluded in approving the neurotoxin ‘Neotame’ which may be even more toxic than aspartame. No labeling will be required, nor will it be listed in the ingredients. It will be used in USDA certified “organic” processed food and cattle feed. [The only hope of escape is to raise our own food or buy from local growers who do not use such chemicals which is why Congress recently passed legislation that eventually will put small-scale organic growers out of business.] FarmWars 2010 Dec 31 (Cached)

    http://www.realityzone.com/currentperiod.html

    The simple human right to have healthy food, water and air.

    So what is the corporation in WA D.C. good for….absolutely nothing!
    It is so way past time to create a new government that governs America so that we can live.

    With our food supply being destroyed, our land and air with toxic chemtrails and fluoride in our water supply….it’s just time. Those adept at creating a government need to do so. Our bodies and our minds cannot tolerate such chemical attacks. We will all become so ill from various diseases, and with the government taking over health care and controlling what care we receive, that is sure to speed us along to even more ill health. They have done this to us. Now it is time for us to turn our backs on them and look for new leadership interested in health, happiness and our true general well-being and safety.

    »crosslinked«

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 4

    • Christine

      US: The misnamed Food Safety bill that recently was passed by Congress calls for “harmonization” with the UN’s rules for control of food and drugs. It even grants the FDA authority to participate in policing food regulations in other countries. [The move toward global government is progressing rapidly toward completion, and it is being led by collectivists within the American government.] NaturalNews 2010 Dec 29 (Cached)

      http://www.naturalnews.com/030863_food_safety_bill_Codex_Alimentarius.html

      The globalists are behaving as if they DO own and control the world, but they have no interest in our well-being. That’s a problem, a big problem for all life is threatened everywhere.

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 3

    • Christine

      …and “their” plan fits together so well with the destruction of life….

      Obama enacts end-of-life plan that drew “death-panel” claims. The government will pay doctors to advise the elderly and those with serious illnesses to make advance decisions regarding when to withdraw medical life support. [There is nothing wrong with this at first glance, but doctors will be required to follow government guidelines which, inevitably, will be determined by political expediency with little regard for personal preference.] New York Times 2010 Dec 26 (Cached)

      http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/26/us/politics/26death.html

      What is that saying…. what they sow they shall reap.

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 5

    • Christine

      Rosalind Peterson: The Chemtrail Cover-Up
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DTxvWLrUeE8&feature=related

      They are ruining and destroying life on the PLANET !!! How is it that they are allowed to continue and who, who will stop them! What politician will confront this and stop it? Only the politicians that we need. The rest of the politicians are unnecessary and useless to us….overpaid, an expense we don’t need for many reasons. We really need a government FOR America….and that does not mean the British dummy corporation in WA D.C. either. We need to turn our back on them and create a government that is FOR life on this planet, that DOES provide security, that DOES provide for our common welfare, life, liberty and the pursuit of HAPPINESS.

      Who are these people who will lead America in a new, positive direction?

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4

      • Christine

        Studies and theories ….BS! They KNOW what they are doing. They use this to keep what they are doing a secret because they do not have to divulge information when something is determined to be “research”. Cover-up the lies, that’s all it is. May the money sources dry up!!! These scientists need to give it a rest. Are these the same scientists that went underground from Nazi Germany and ended up in America?

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2

    • WAB

      This is why its important to make friends with your local farmer.

      I live in NW Pennsylvania where the rural and Amish farmers cater to locals rather than sell to the large processors. Its much cheaper for the customer and the farmer makes more money from the sale.

      I recently bought a side of beef from a local farmer. I got 600 pounds of processed and packaged meat… completely organic free range… for less per pound than what the grocery sells their ground chuck. My city friends couldn’t believe how much better it tasted. You can also get fruit, vegetables, chickens, pork… even bison… in the same manner.

      There was a time when people knew precisely where their food came from. Even if they didn’t raise it themselves, they typically knew the farmer and the butcher personally on a first name basis. They went to church together… their kids attended the same schools. Today most folks have no idea where their food comes from, how it was raised and processed, or even if its actually the meat and cut that is stated in the label. Most are completely dependent on the FDA to make sure its safe. Not a good idea. Granted its not practical to have this kind of relationship in the city… but then again, thats why I don’t live in a city.

      My point… support your local growers by buying their organic produce and meats. Most cases its cheaper buying direct and, if you take the time to talk to them, you’ll form an important relationship and secure an affordable, high quality food supply.

      Highly rated. What do you think? Thumb up 11 Thumb down 0

  • Alex Kruger

    Lets not forget here that under our esteemed President George W. Bush the American public lost more rights then any under any other president.. Do you realize Beverly Weaver that the things you complained about a republican passed.. Keep that in mind, also anyone who supports the trickle down effect is a fool

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 2

  • Beverly Weaver

    This is the year 2010 and it still amazes me that we have the black and white issue at all as human beings our intellect should have moved on from this issue decades and decades ago but from reading some of these comments I can see not much has changed.

    Ron Paul is a man of honor and his word means something he is not advocating racism here- he is saying all people deserve equality. We as Americans should be for fewer laws and invasion in to our private lifes and civil liberties. Less Goverment is essential to preserve American Democracy.

    Do you realize that the Goverment is trying to screw with the 4th Amendement and push thhru a bill that will allow the warrent less monitoring of Face book, other social sites, cell phones, landlines without due process and anyone can be arrested and detained without representation just because you might know someone on your page they think is a terorist. This is where we are headed in this War Complex Hidden Agenda ~ “Be like US or we kill you mentality”. When the Homeland Security Act was passed we signed away our civil liberties. So People I wouldn’t worry so much about if you are black or white ~ I would be worried about living in a FREE Society. I don’t need the Goverment to wipe my ass thank you!

    Highly rated. What do you think? Thumb up 15 Thumb down 3

  • Christine

    U.S. NAVY TESTING PROGRAMS, NEW THREAT TO THE PACIFIC
    http://www.newswithviews.com/Peterson/rosalind128.htm

    We have a right to live free of toxic chemicals in our air, land, water and food!
    And, we also have the right to stop the US Federal corporation from harming us!

    I’m sure this appears to be “testing” but they know the damage they are doing, purposefully and with intention. These are acts of war against the American people. As in the Gulf of Mexico, they are intentional killing our food supply and spraying us with harmful chemicals.

    If a spouse poisons their husband/wife, they are put in jail because it is a criminal act. It is no less of a criminal act when any branch of this federal corporation we mistakenly call our government does it! How is it they commit one crime after another and no one goes to jail, is confined so they cannot harm anyone else again?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1

  • tim mills

    Question: How many libertarians does it take to screw in a light bulb?

    Answer: None. The invisible hand of the free market will install the bulb.

    Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 14 Thumb down 10

  • Philip Kirschner

    The civil rights act does nothing for our current people. African Americans are being discriminated against at a much higher rate in terms of employment. Espeally in construction where illegal entrents into our nation are being being favored because they work cheaply.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 3

  • Terry

    I don’t agree with not serving or selling something to someone due to race. But I would like the liberty to refuse to sell or serve someone with their pants below their butts. Can I at least have that?

    Highly rated. What do you think? Thumb up 24 Thumb down 5

    • ianqmacallister

      No. Under federal law, if you implement a policy which has a “disparate impact,” then you can get investigated and prosecuted for violating someone’s “civil rights.”

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  • Bill Isom

    The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was one of the most ill conceived attempts to deal with a social situation that has developed over the past 150 years after the Civil War. Personally, I don’t believe it was even intended to solve racial problems but only a political move by LBJ to gain a voting block for the Democrat Party. The end result has created a “special class of civil right” not shared by all. Even LBJ himself declared that Blacks “would be voting Democrat for the next 100 years”. These laws have been greatly abused and in fact discriminatory against the majority of Americans. How can you correct one wrong with another without causing animosity and greater tension between races? At minimum, these laws should be modified to allow severe penalities for abuse by minorities. These laws have created an “entitlement” to a few at the expense of many. Due to these laws we now have Muslims in our country that use “racism” as a stepping stone to intimidate others into accepting harsh doctrines of Islam. Forcing others to submit under the penalty of Federal harassment has not given us a “color blind” society but just the opposite.

    Highly rated. What do you think? Thumb up 21 Thumb down 6

    • KC

      The black voting bloc you are referring to had already shifted to Democrats…

      Also, could you give a SPECIFIC example of the use of these laws to “accepting the harsh doctrines of Islam?” I assume you are thinking of Sharia law, which Mr. Paul has said is far from a reality in the US, actually getting into it with Sean Hannity who loves that particular scare tactic to stir religious hatred towards others.

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0

  • E. Foxx

    Wow……

    The Civil Rights Act of 1964 does not JUST include RACE. It also includes the protection of rights regardless of gender, ethnicity, and religion as well. The law does not GIVE US OUR RIGHTS, it’s protects it. It allows so Christians, Jews, Muslims, Women, Men, Latino/a Americans, Black Americans, White Americans are NOT discriminated against based on who they are!

    Yes, this bill does infringe on private property owners rights…..by stating they cannot bar people from their property on the basis of their race, religion, gender, or ethnicity! And if there is a private property owner who wants to discriminate, they can by establishing themselves as a private club.

    I don’t know how allowing PEOPLE (not just people of color) to vote, to visit places of business, and to visit public areas, and to be eligible for jobs has increased racial tensions! If racial tensions have INCREASED since the 60’s I’m pretty sure there’d still be forced segregation in addition to “Colored” and “White” signs still being hung up.

    Besides, the actual AFFIRMATIVE ACTION legislation was issued by LBJ as Executive Order 11246, and not as a portion of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

    Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 23 Thumb down 16

    • End the Fed

      You seem to believe there is a (natural) right not to be discriminated against who you are.

      I don’t see any evidence that there is such a right, and I don’t think it’s fair to force people not to discriminate against whoever they want.

      If you think there is such a right, you are welcome to act accordingly and treat everyone equally but you have no right to force others to do the same.

      Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 13 Thumb down 18

      • Forest

        I call Naive Libertarian!

        “If the Government would just DISAPPEAR, Everyone would act SENSIBLY and we’d all be able to get along!”

        http://www.leftycartoons.com/the-24-types-of-libertarian/

        Is this the same type of thinking that I saw on another Ron Paul forum that goes like ‘If we just had fewer laws, there would be less crime!’

        Insane.

        Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 14 Thumb down 9

        • End the Fed

          I didn’t say that things would be better or that people would act more sensibly if there were no laws against discrimination. There would simply be more freedom, and the rest would be up to each and every one of us.

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 7

          • KC

            Saying, “the rest would be up to each and everyone of us” goes against almost ALL OF HUMAN HISTORY! We are a species prone to hatred, stereotype, and discrimination towards what we don’t know/understand and thus are afraid of.

            This law, while needing updating or modification and being FAR from perfect, symbolizes our the nature of our nation as a REPUBLIC – protecting minority rights (not just racially a minority, but in all ways) from, as James Madison said: “the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority.”

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0

          • normfromga

            “This law, while needing updating or modification and being FAR from perfect, symbolizes our the nature of our nation as a REPUBLIC – protecting minority rights (not just racially a minority, but in all ways) from, as James Madison said: “the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority.””

            Except for the minority of proprietors who might not want to serve some people, for whatever reason.

            Rand Paul was nearly lynched (if lynching Whites were possible) for stating that one of the biggest evils of the Jim Crow laws was that it prohibited proprietors FROM serving anyone whom they wished, ie, they didn’t just permit discrimination, they mandated it. Interestingly, Hubert Humphrey used the same argument during a televised debate when the Civil Rights Bill had been introduced to Congress.

            Of course, all the law did was flip the rules over, so that proprietors still didn’t have any rights in determining whom they could or could not serve.

            And, yeah, Austrian economics still has it right about the “invisible hand”: even if my community hadn’t passed any laws, a restaurant would still have to keep cigarette smoke from reaching my nostrils if they expected me to eat there, and those which doesn’t want to share with us how much sugar and fat they add to their delicacies will still not get my business.

            I probably wouldn’t treat racist establishments much better. Remember, when the Civil Rights Law was passed, a larger percentage of Republicans than Democrats voted for it, in both Houses.

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  • Omega

    I feel confident that people are less ignorant than before. They are willing to respect people of different color.

    I am brown.

    The only thing that I fear is the KKK, but I feel that other ‘white’ Americans will stand up to them, because we’ve outgrown that typical racial thing.

    Highly rated. What do you think? Thumb up 24 Thumb down 5

    • End the Fed

      I’m white and the only thing I fear is violent black muggers and rapists, but I feel that other ‘black’ Americans will stand up to them, because we’ve outgrown that typical racial thing.

      Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 8 Thumb down 19

      • Forest

        Looks like you, and Ron Paul, share a fear of black people:

        “If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be.” – Ron Paul, 1992

        “Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the `criminal justice system,’ I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal.” – Ron Paul, 1992

        “We don’t think a child of 13 should be held responsible as a man of 23. That’s true for most people, but black males age 13 who have been raised on the streets and who have joined criminal gangs are as big, strong, tough, scary and culpable as any adult and should be treated as such.” – Ron Paul, 1992

        “What else do we need to know about the political establishment than that it refuses to discuss the crimes that terrify Americans on grounds that doing so is racist? Why isn’t that true of complex embezzling, which is 100 percent white and Asian?” – Ron Paul, 1992

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 7

        • End the Fed

          Yeah, looks like we’re in good company:

          “There is nothing more painful to me at this stage in my life than to walk down the street and hear footsteps and start thinking about robbery. Then look around and see somebody white and feel relieved…. After all we have been through. Just to think we can’t walk down our own streets, how humiliating. ” – Jesse Jackson, 11/27/1993

          (By the way, you do know that Ron Paul didn’t write those newsletters.)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 5

          • Ben

            Ron Paul wrote those letters. He’s lying to you. And you believe him.

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 7

        • Forest

          “Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty and the end of welfare and affirmative action,” – Ron Paul, 1992

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 5

        • End the Fed

          True, as evidenced by the fact that Obama got 96% of the black vote.

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 5

        • jonbowen

          I’m hard pressed to believe that Ron Paul would say those things. And even if he did, I’m sure that the quotes are taken out of context.

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        • ianqmacallister

          @jonbowen

          Blacks commit crime far out of proportion to their numbers. This is a fact. They’re only 13% of the population but they commit 35% of the rapes, half of the homicides, and 62% of the armed robberies. Apparently any discussion of these facts is “racist.”

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

        • ianqmacallister

          >”If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be.” – Ron Paul, 1992

          Are you saying that this is false? Are you saying that black teenage males are slower than your average bear? Black males between the ages 14 and 24 comprise just 1% of the US population but commit 30% of the homicides. Is it wrong that I am on higher alert if I am near a group of black male teens?

          >”Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the `criminal justice system,’ I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal.” – Ron Paul, 1992

          Perhaps it depends on what is meant by “criminal or semi-criminal,” but I think that whoever wrote that didn’t really do their research. Michael Levin looked into this question in his wonderful book, Why Race Matters, and used US government data to determine that nearly one in three black men is a felon. Also, did you see how the black population of DC re-elected Mayor Barry even *after* he was convicted of a felony? I think that that speaks volumes.

          >”We don’t think a child of 13 should be held responsible as a man of 23. That’s true for most people, but black males age 13 who have been raised on the streets and who have joined criminal gangs are as big, strong, tough, scary and culpable as any adult and should be treated as such.” – Ron Paul, 1992

          I do not think that 13-year old blacks should automatically be prosecuted as adults, but the is that blacks do mature at an earlier age than whites.

          >”What else do we need to know about the political establishment than that it refuses to discuss the crimes that terrify Americans on grounds that doing so is racist? Why isn’t that true of complex embezzling, which is 100 percent white and Asian?” – Ron Paul, 1992

          Again, is there anything here that is untrue?

          The people who get upset by these snippets from Ron Paul’s newsletters are not upset because the newsletter overstated the case. They’re upset at *any* discussion of black crime outside the parameters of political correctness.

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        • ianqmacallister

          I agree, although it’s merely his opinion since it all hinges on the definition of the word “sensible.” Did you know that 96% of African-American voters voted for Barry Soetero?

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    • ianqmacallister

      Klan groups are penetrated and surveilled by the FBI, and largely toothless. When I am at an ATM machine, I am not looking over my shoulder for fear of Klansmen or militia types.

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  • thedude

    He is right that affirmative action is no good. It should be scrapped however noble its intent, it should and must go and go soon. However he is wrong that business and other entities should be able to discriminate against people, you cant just look at everything in ideological terms, the reality of what he proposes would be civil war. There can be no civil society if people are routinely denied access to goods and services for no other reason than their racial look, if you don’t like a particular race, then don’t invite them in your house and don’t fraternise with them. It will make you an ignorant pig but its a mans right to wallow in his ignorance. But one you are offering goods and services to the public you enter the public sphere and refusing to serve people is in the same ballpark as shouting abuse at them as they pass by..it is a public action and therefore comes under the due regulation of public law.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 5

    • Machine

      A privately owned local buisness should not come under due regulation of public law when it comes to the right to deny employment or refuse service. Be it a mom and pop dry cleaners, salon, hardware store, gas station, dinner etc. they should not be subject to the same laws that federal, state, and county funded buisnesses are.

      Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 13 Thumb down 7

  • machine/

    I too agree with you on the issue of affirmitive action…it makes things less by allowing more that aren’t necessary and/or qualified.

    I will say this though: Affirmitive action like Labor laws and unions and wellfare were at one time a good idea because of the times, however like all good ideas over time they become a “belief” and what was once purposeful becomes abused….Sorta like if 1 is good then 100 is better. The other thing is that anytime we make something a law or policy, the masses become relient on that law as being what is best regardless of the greater negative impact. i.e. the war on drugs and our zero tollerance policy for illegal drugs.

    The Declaration of Independence tells us what we need to know in our hearts; that all men are created equal and have the RIGHT to Life, Liberty and the pursute of Happiness. However it does not guarentee that everyone will get to play professional football, own a million dollar Yacht, or become a Astronaught. It just simply states that every legal American has a right to to those ends. However, we don’t have a right to use any means we feel; especially if they violate another persons rights and wellbeing. So why do we need all these special groups? They really don’t do good for anyone..they are selfish and self serving, and self righteous…constantly insiting hostility and violence. Don’t get me wrong I am all for a good ralley, protest and demonstration…That’s every Americans right! I don’t need some snake oil salesman to tell me that.

    Yes I am well aware that all through out history there have been people that have commited horrable and wicked acts to others based on the colour of their skin, sex, religion, etc. Some of the worst in our history: The slave trade, Manifest Destiny, The Colorado coal strike of 1914, which led to the Ludlow Masacre insited by the “great” John D. Rockfeller. When you really look and research our countries history and how we “got to where we are” our government is really no different or greater than any other Empire that we have preceded in that we have pursued our ends with a violent and hostle means. This country was built on the blood, and sweat of the poor and oppressed; all for the intrest and benefit of the wealthy few. ANd this is when you realize when these groups and organizations first begain that they had a calling, a purpose, and did it for the good of everyone. Unfortunaltly they have been abused by the very groups they represent and support and have abused the system and have worn out there welcome…the ends no longer justify there means.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1

  • Machine

    This is certainly a tough issue…Mostly because we have gotten so blind sided by the P.C. movement that we automatically know which side to take when some whitey tells a black joke or says they hired some illegal spicks to take care of their landscape. But I do give credit to the few that will stand up and challenge the Civil Rights Act. Unfortunatly because many people take it the wrong way when someone does oppose such laws for being unjust, in the sense that it works backwards ” in practice”, people automatically assume that those looking to reform the Civil Rights Act are being racist. Those opposeing it are not saying that it wasn’t just in getting public “segragation laws” abolished. They aren’t saying that they want laws rewtitten to deny anyone the right to enter a public building, attend a public school, etc. based on the colour of their skin, their sexuality…It is just as wrong though to deny a private buisness owner the right to refuse service or deny employment to anyone he feels necessary. Dr. Paul is correct when stateing that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was a; “massive violation of the rights of private property and contract, which are the bedrocks of free society.”

    Personally I feel that based on the last 40 yrs of movements that have leaned on the Civil Rights Act, most people already see the abusiveness many organiztions and groups have caused. And even IF The Civil Rights Act is reformed to allow private buisness to exercise their right to make their own decisions without the worry of being hounded by the NAACP…the people are not looking to segregate class, race, and sex.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0

  • GE

    I believe that some regulation or oversight is only necessary in today’s society because people don’t all begin life w/ the same advantages. Some people have to deal w/ ridiculous amounts of extra burdens that others don’t face … I realize that life isn’t fair and that people are all born in different season w/ different talents etc. but I think that there should be some kind of minimum starting point for all LEGAL citizens … Just my thoughts

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5

    • Yvonne

      GE that is a kind thought but it is unrealistic. Who is going to balance the field? The government? Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. To give a powerful agency like government the authority to behave in a parental way is doomed for failure.
      Churches help people. God helps people. The government hinders us.
      I certainly wouldn’t want a caste system like they had in India and certainly we all deserve the chance to change our station in life if we want. But humans need to be left alone to some extent.
      Affirmative action paints certain groups with a ”stupid” brush.
      What if very few armenians were doctors. So what. All it would mean is that when you go to an armenian doctor you will now think ”gee he must be a smart guy since he is a doctor”. You would barely notice he was armenian.
      But if the government floods the field with undeserving armenians just to fill a quota then you will suddenly view your doctor as ”that armenian guy who is probably undeserving” instead of ”the smart doctor who is armenian”.
      Affirmative action creates tension.
      The governmnent and media thrive off of the racial tensions they create.
      They are wicked.

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 1

      • Machine

        I too agree with you on the issue of affirmitive action…it makes things less by allowing more that aren’t necessary and/or qualified.

        I will say this though: Affirmitive action like Labor laws and unions and wellfare were at one time a good idea because of the times, however like all good ideas over time they become a “belief” and what was once purposeful becomes abused….Sorta like if 1 is good then 100 is better. The other thing is that anytime we make something a law or policy, the masses become relient on that law as being what is best regardless of the greater negative impact. i.e. the war on drugs and our zero tollerance policy for illegal drugs.

        The Declaration of Independence tells us what we need to know in our hearts; that all men are created equal and have the RIGHT to Life, Liberty and the pursute of Happiness. However it does not guarentee that everyone will get to play professional football, own a million dollar Yacht, or become a Astronaught. It just simply states that every legal American has a right to to those ends. However, we don’t have a right to use any means we feel; especially if they violate another persons rights and wellbeing. So why do we need all these special groups? They really don’t do good for anyone..they are selfish and self serving, and self righteous…constantly insiting hostility and violence. Don’t get me wrong I am all for a good ralley, protest and demonstration…That’s every Americans right! I don’t need some snake oil salesman to tell me that.

        Yes I am well aware that all through out history there have been people that have commited horrable and wicked acts to others based on the colour of their skin, sex, religion, etc. Some of the worst in our history: The slave trade, Manifest Destiny, The Colorado coal strike of 1914, which led to the Ludlow Masacre insited by the “great” John D. Rockfeller. When you really look and research our countries history and how we “got to where we are” our government is really no different or greater than any other Empire that we have preceded in that we have pursued our ends with a violent and hostle means. This country was built on the blood, and sweat of the poor and oppressed; all for the intrest and benefit of the wealthy few. ANd this is when you realize when these groups and organizations first begain that they had a calling, a purpose, and did it for the good of everyone. Unfortunaltly they have been abused by the very groups they represent and support and have abused the system and have worn out there welcome…the ends no longer justify there means.

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0

  • Yvonne

    State-sponsored school segregation was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of the United States in 1954 in Brown v. Board of Education.
    There were some remaining Jim Crow laws which Kennedy addressed with his original draft of the Civil Rights Act.
    It should have ended there but the House messed it up.
    The Jim Crow laws were an overt violation of constitutional rights.
    They should have just done away with unconstitutional laws.
    But they couldn’t just treat the public fairly.
    The government NEEDS to have a divided public.
    Divide and conquer.
    They added to the bill and as Dr. Paul explains; this gave the media run government ag a NEW way to ”Increase Racial Tension and Diminish Individual LIberties”, as Ron Paul points out.
    Watch out for wolves in sheep’s clothing.
    Our government run media had the AUDACITY to tell the public that Al Sharpton was the LEADER of the black community???? Then this zionist media PRETENDS that they are on his side and therefore representing a newly created ….and SEGREGATED…black community.
    Think of it.
    They give black people their own leader?!?!?!?!?! Oh and…he’s a moron. Thank you very much.
    p.s. if the media wanted a real black candidate then why did they shun Alan Keyes?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0

  • Katie

    Ron Paul has a very interesting point. Although I personally think integration was pretty excellent, his views are sound and based on the constitution. If H.Res. 676 were to be revoked, I’m sure that things would remain the same as they are currently (or so I hope).

    And Jason, above, I agree with you. It does stink. Hence the reason I’m bitter towards UVA.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

  • malcolm mccue

    You acknowledge that “…America has made great strides in race relations over the past forty years. However, this progress is due to changes in public attitudes..” I do believe that the attitudes you mention are directly linked to the legislation – people generally accept what they perceive as law – this is why our society manages to hold together.

    I don’t disagree with your viewpoint but this issue area is really best to be left out of public discussion. There are ample other examples of government intrusion that can be examined to further our cause

    Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 9 Thumb down 12

    • Jason

      Seems like our country is barely holding together. I believe we need tougher laws that actually enforce the laws they promise to enforce. A person, regardless of color should have the exact type of opportunities as anyone else. I can’t agree more with that. But if two people competiting for the same job and one is clearly qualified more than the other, should race have anything to do with it? Of course not. Everyone is equal. No handouts no free passes. The government has made it now where its tilted back the other way. I hate to be making the hard earned grades I’m making from studying hard and working even harder and then get rejected because someone else who did much worse but has darker skin got it. Its bull.

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 4

      • Machine

        The LAST thing this country needs is MORE TOUGH LAWS!!!!!!!
        Security does NOT equal freedom.

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0