Civil Rights Act

569 Responses




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.


569 responses to “Civil Rights Act”

  1. Justplaythegme

    I have to come to the conclusion Ron Paul is right. The civil rights movement was the cause for equality , not the civil rights act enforced. I have little doubt that the movement could have advanced as quickly without it though. With the changing times and colors of America, I am anxious to see how well civil rights remain once the colors have flipped. This day is not to far off in our countries future. I believe equality has arrived between the people. I am not fool enough to believe racism is dead, if not flipped from one evil to another. Once you use a quota system in either manor, you stifle growth and continue using rascism as a cause.

    »crosslinked«

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 2

    1. squishi

      You do realize the civil rights act is a product of the civil rights movement, right?

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2

      1. Justplaythegame

        Umm, if you read … yes I do.. As does Ron Paul. What he is saying if you want total freedom this is not correct because even here laws by government infringe on another when supporting rights for the other.

        Example, I open a breakfast shop cause my buddies like my cooking. No one invested but me. No one but me should have the right to say who “I” serve. Yet the Government thinks differently although they did not invest in my restaurant. How is that right? I think this all can still be avoided by charging 1 penny on entry into an establishment and calling it a private club. Which, allows the owner to make his own rules. Course, I don’t *know* this for fact.. think it’s been done. If so, all the laws are bogus anyways and if a chain wanted to, they could do just that. Masons, Moose Lodge, VFW clubs come to mind..as paid clubs that fall under different laws.

        But the bottom line, I personally would accept anyone coming through the door openly because I want to make money. Those that wish not to, should have that right not to.

        You can never balance everything.. total freedom allows one to do as they wish and in a free country, this law should be the highest law if it does not physically harm another.

        Speaking of which..
        These smoking laws which have alianated smokers from bars and restaurants is another example. Second hand smoke is not proven any worse than the bus your city uses on public roads. Why do we have buses? 70% or more cancers are caused by “other” than smoking related. When do these all get fixed? It’s all about control and sin tax collected. Your charcoal grill puts off 160 packs per burning. Im looking forward to fast food and coke sin tax for those obese people ruining our society. We as a society are ruining our own capitalistic approaches with over regulations and no one but the loudest seem to have a say, which are usually liberals wanting more “entitlements” and would sell our souls to get them. FEAR is all the entitlements your Government currently offers you. Anything you “think” you have, they can take away in the signing of a bill.

        All this is the same as civil rights and their movement and tea party and it’s movement. Over regulations, to much Government and unfair taxations. We know all these to well and openly abused.

        Remember this line: “when they came for me, no one was left to speak up”

        It’s not Government controling you, you suppose to control the Government through the people you elect going by the Constitution only or you become a socialist country controlled and not free.

        It was the movement.. not the federal law that woke more people up. It was the law that hastened it and causes more racial divide. Obviously this is all my opinion and Ron Paul may see it differently.

        Im still voting for Ron Paul…:-)

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

        1. squishi

          I am pretty sure that has been done. I can’t think of exact terms but clauses in golf clubs, subdivisions, voter qualifications, etc all had special language and cute original loopholes they found to continue to segregate. I have to say that if you do recognize the Act is a product of the movement, and you acknowledge the movement brought “equality”, am I the only one who sees that as contradictory?

          You see! I try to give everyone I encounter the benefit of the doubt that they have common (and decent) sense. But you just compared banning smokers to banning Black ppl? One being a voluntary intermittent habit, the other being someone’s race. Are you well? That is NOT just the same as civil rights doh-doh.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

          1. Justplaythegame

            Why is this so blindly ignored in my postings? do you believe and justify picking and chosing which parts to read?

            “It was the movement.. not the federal law that woke more people up. It was the law that hastened it and causes more racial divide.”

            You can’t “force” a free man to accept which he chooses not to without causing what you wish to solve.. You can over time, change his thinking by movements such as Dr. Kings..

            As for smokers compared to black??
            Any discrimination… is still a discrimination. Are you well? or stay blind to facts only you wish to chose?

            Again remember this ending line to a great piece:

            “when they came for me, no one was left to speak up”

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

        2. Ianjmacdonald

          The civil right movement has not brought equality. “Income gap between black, white families grows” AP, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21759075/#.TshK1lZyyfU

          As of 2011, whites on average have 20 times the net worth of blacks and 18 times that of Hispanics, according to an analysis of new Census data.

          No law can undo the fact that the average white IQ is 100 while the average African American IQ is 85. This means that the *average* white person has a higher IQ than 85% of American blacks.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

      2. Charles

        Are you in favor of racial quotas?

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  2. illusionzend

    It’s obvious why the Civil Rights Act is such a hotbed topic but in all honesty, the fact that it “had” to exist in the first place is completely abhorrent. We are talking about a FEDERAL law that dictates to PRIVATIZED business how they MUST conduct there business. How does that not seem wrong to anyone? Would you like the Federal government to dictate what goes on in your living room? How is a persons place of business, REGARDLESS OF SKIN COLOR, any different. Both things were earned and fought for through determination and perseverance and have become PRIVATE PROPERTY. I agree with the above comment, “there is no such thing as reverse racism.” Discrimination based on skin – white, green, purple, red, black, yellow, brown, polka-dotted – is discrimination. Extend that to discrimination of one socioeconomic class towards another. Or gender discrimination. All of these things are perpetrated every day either in the action or hearts of countless people. FACT. Is it right? Hell no! But these problems have faced humanity for time immemorial. Taking from the Christian Bible, “Is there one man who is perfect; No not one!” Regardless of religion the wisdom in this sentence is plain and true. No one is perfect, everyone errs. So why in the world does the government think they are doing a service by instituting laws that deny a person the right to be human? Bottom line, civil rights have come a looong way but not due to this Act. Its the people who stood up for their rights gaining respect for their determination and character to speak up when many just hide away inside themselves. By instituting the Civil Rights Act, racial tensions are only acknowledged and reiterated in the forcing of a person to abide by laws that make a person equal only on the color of their skin. Doesn’t matter if your the laziest, slovenly, rudest, foul-smelling, under-educated human on the face of this planet. Your quota aint met, then Big Brother’s gonna come a’running… That’s despicable.

    I don’t know about you, but I try to judge a person solely on their character and pray they do the same with me. Not everyone gets along. FACT. It’s that simple. Looking at the history of our country is obviously important but looking before it is equally important. Look to Africa before there was an America. Look to the warring of the tribes and the fact that to this day there is still unrest throughout the continent. Is that the fault of White America as well? Surely, injustices were done and they were widescale, but the wisdom of new generations of people learning from the mistakes of the previous generation is how humanity has thrived and survived since the dawn of man. To look at the actions of the few and persecute the many is absolutely counterproductive and for the government to have ever caved into denying the ability for mans humanity to man to develop and grow through mutual respect is terrifying…

    There will always be bigotry. There will always be hatred. It takes the few to stand up and make a personal decision to say “I’m not going to accept that and its not how I’m going to be forced to live.” to make a difference thats anything more than superficial. After all, Isn’t that exactly how we came to be the United States of America in the first place?

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 3

    1. squishi

      So do you feel the Emancipation Proclamation was another nasty FEDERAL law, forcing business owners to release their entire workforce and destroying their private businesses. This whole anti”Federal” thing really makes fools of ppl. I’m not one to diagnose via the www, but I think some of you who are racist, some unintelligent, and all hypocritical if you agree w/ the notion that Civil Rights Act did harm to relations of the races. Do you likewise agree that it should be legal for women to be denied service, employment, or entry into establishments? It’s easy to bandwagon now bc we are so far removed from that history, but if your exact description was banned from every major shop, diner, theatre in your area, you would find FEDERAL laws disbanning such institutionalized racism as a help not hinderence toward gaining your liberties.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2

      1. Charles

        Now that is missing the point.

        “So do you feel the Emancipation Proclamation was another nasty FEDERAL law, forcing business owners to release their entire workforce and destroying their private businesses.”

        It is clear to me, and to Ron Paul, that slavery is wrong, should never have been allowed (it was common throughout most of the world for most of human history, whether based on race, tribe, ethnicity, etc, or not) and needed to be ended. Also, if you have ever heard Ron Paul you know that he is colorblind WRT race.

        If someone’s business success depends on slavery, that is irrelevant, and it’s just too damned bad if their business fails due to lack of slavery, because the slavery had to stop. Obviously, both Ron Paul and I welcome the Emancipation Proclamation with open arms because WE are the ones who believe in Individual Rights, not collectivism (including racial quotas).

        The Civil Rights Act, whose intent was good, fell short by setting the stage for racial quotas and by dictating to private businesses who wanted to be idiots to their own detriment.

        For the other part, clearly it is good for business to allow all customers. I also think that some dumb racist SOB should be allowed to reduce his customer base by excluding people by race. Being white, if I saw a restaurant with a sign “Whites Not Served”, I would not want to go there. But if a black owned restaurant served anyone, I would be happy to go there. Now which one of those businesses is more likely to succeed? Oh, it’s that profit motive, once again bringing people together, and eliminating the problem. Yup, freedom works.

        And who ends up looking like a turd? Yup, it’s the guys who segregate their businesses.

        I can understand that some people, including myself, want things to be corrected on a bunch of subjects, RIGHT NOW. Some fall into the trap of thinking that we can accomplish that by government intervention. Remember that our problems have existed for centuries. We still have them, not because of Liberty, but because we do not yet have Liberty. Ultimately, Liberty is the solution, the ONLY solution to racism, because Liberty holds each individual as an individual, while the solve-it-by-govt method holds people to be members of a race. What we need is a colorblind society, not one that tracks us by race. Unfortunately, that part of the CRA of 1964 that set the stage for quotas furthers this. Hmmm, reverse racism is still racism.

        Sometimes it’s easy to hold a grudge against someone who didn’t want to serve you on the basis of race. I have no problem with that, but why extend that to an entire race? By so doing, what would you be practicing?

        Is that what you intended?

        Maybe not.

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      2. Ianjmacdonald

        The day it was issued, the Emancipation Proclamation did not free a single slave.

        >Do you likewise agree that it should be legal for women to be denied service, employment, or entry into establishments?

        Yes. Contracts for goods, services, employment, and entry upon private property should be freely arrived at by the parties concerned and not dictated by federal diversicrats.

        Should a male-owned club be free to exclude females? Of course. For all I know it’s a gay club that seeks to cater to gay males only. Likewise a female-owned should be free to cater exclusively to females. Maybe they’re lesbians and want their own space free of men. How does that hurt me? It doesn’t!

        Why must force your presence upon those who do not want you? Why do you have such a strong need to control other people?

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  3. Tammy

    I have a guess that Dr. Paul’s statements here about civil rights is one reason why he may not stand a chance in a presidential election. I’m not saying he will not stand a chance, but I often read about the frustration of Ron Paul supporters who feel he does not get the same attention in the media as other Republican candidates–supporters feel he is being intentionally ignored. Dr. Paul’s comments on civil rights (and education) give me an idea as to the problem.

    For one, the idea of ending the civil rights act and the department of education is downright scary, in my opinion. They certainly have plenty of shortcomings, but ending them seems like an endorsement for people to discriminate against minorities, cut off programs that help children with special needs, etc. Sure, some states might enact their own programs, perhaps even a majority would do so. Ron Paul might be entirely correct, and everything and everyone would be much better off because the local and state governments would have the power to make programs according to their specific needs. But the idea of ending these federal programs is still frightening regardless of Ron Paul’s positive intentions and the potential benefits. I assume that he feels the same about the department of human services. My first thought is that DHS protects children and women in abusive situations, and I know first hand that they have helped a lot of people in horrible situations. What if DHS comes to an end? That’s the big question for me for ending any federal program: “What if?” What will happen to all of the people who depend on them? What will be the alternative solution?

    Now, I admit that Dr. Paul has given a well-reasoned solution to ending the Fed. He said in the Ames Straw Poll, in response to a comment by Gringrich, that it would be a gradual process and that he agreed with Gringrich’s proposals of heavily auditing the federal reserve and holding it responsible. So, that’s great! If I could hear his proposed alternatives to ending the civil rights act, dept. of ed, dhs, and other federal social programs, I might be able to envision a future without them (as of now, I shudder to think of it). He seems to depend a whole lot on the good-will of individual people. But I think many will agree that the US is seeing a lot of greed, selfishness, and bigotry in our current times. Ideals are nice to envision and work towards, but idealism often doesn’t go very far. Look at people’s fear of communism and socialism. These are some people’s ideals, too. But when you add human beings to the mix, they tend to fall apart.

    So, here is the crux of the problem for Ron Paul. He is very radical, but I think Republicans are afraid that he is too radical for enough people to get behind him so he can win the presidential election. All one has to say is, “He wants to end the civil rights act” or the department of education or all social programs that a majority of people may benefit from (or at least they think they do). He stands the chance of sounding crazy even if he can defend his arguments. Now, most people will agree that these social programs have a lot of faults, and some think that more funding is the solution. If Ron Paul could initially focus on gradual changes so that we can first become independent of these programs, then his ideas might not sound so extreme. As of now, I’m not so sure he can win the primaries because I personally have a lot of concerns about his proposals, and I’m sure I’m not the only one.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3

    1. SamFox

      Tammy, Ron Paul is not really radical. Many have that perception because as RP says, we have strayed far from the Constitution. We have grown up in a nation where our Constitution has been slowly ignored & set aside by many states & local govts. The fed govt is the worst offender in this regard however.

      Ron seems radical because getting back to the Constitution requires cutting out UN-Constitutional govt agencies. That would include the Dept. of Ed & many others that we have grown accustomed to & made dependent on but have done little to improve life in general, partly because the govt has run up such huge deficits & debt to pay for all them & partly because we can see liberty slipping from our grasp as the govt gives it self more control. That we are used to UN-Constitutional agencies & govt programs & have come to rely on them does not change the fact that they are illegal under the Constitution & gives govt more power than the Constitution actually allows.

      In the case of the Dept. of Ed, this agency has spent a LOT of $ but overall, education has has declined. Test scores bear this out. Our students score very poorly compared to most of the rest of the world. My son-in-law graduated HS but could barely read.

      Another example: The ME wars & govt foreign policy of interventionism have caused much retaliatory blow back, like 9-11. So many people have been brain washed by the war on terror propaganda that says we should be over there so they won’t come here, that when some one like Paul says we should end these undeclared wars, he sounds radical.

      When Ron said that blowback was a major contributing factor for 9-11 he sounded very radical. But the real ‘radical’ is our foreign policy of interventionism that causes people around the world to hate us as we invade their countries, take out their leadership that we often installed in the 1st place & cause a lot of civiliandeaths. Most often the new govt is worse for the citizens of the invaded country than the one we took out.

      END P. 1

      SamFox

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      1. SamFox

        Part 2:

        Saddam Hussein is the poster child for that.

        Now that we have seen the huge waste of lives & money that have done little to make us safe & given us the ‘Patriot’ Act & molesters at airports, Ron’s end the ME wars platform no longer sounds so radical. Now that we have see how far govt has gone in it’s war on liberty , freedom & the Constitution via govt agencies like the DOD, EPA & the ‘Patriot’ Act , Paul’s call for ending these is welcome relief & no longer sounds so radical.

        Which is more ‘radical’: Decimation of the Constitution by an out of control fed govt that has for decades used agencies, burroacracy laden programs, over taxation, overspending & ponzi type borrowing to cover the shortfall that gives us a debt we may not be able to pay, the UN-Constitutional laws & regulations designed to stealthily steal our freedoms & put their yoke upon us: Or a man who calls for a reversal of all that?

        If Ron Paul is ‘radical’ because of his call for a return to honest Constitutional govt, SIGN ME UP!!! :-)

        SamFox

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  4. Dave

    Cameron, “created equal” was written in the Declaration of Independence, 1776, by Thomas Jefferson. Thomas Jefferson actually owned slaves as many others of the time. They were imperfect men, in spite of the fact that they were brilliant thinkers concerning liberty. In various states many people began to understand that slavery was incompatible with the ideals and philosophy of Liberty; thus, the Union began to form “slave states” and “free states” and the rift continued to tear the country apart until it culminated with the Civil War of the 1860′s. You are right that White Supremecy in government empowered racist society to the very real disadvantage of Black Americans and other Non-Angolo Americans; and racial supremecy is counterintuitive to liberty. I firmly believe in private property rights. I don’t beleive that government should impose any mandate on my own property that I use privately, such as code enforcement, and immanent domain. However, there is just no perfect answer in an imperfect society. If this country was made up of all milky white skin, blue eyes, and blond hair — yes, no need for a Civil Rights act on private businesses. But, alas, I am forced to agree with you that we can not go back to “separate but equal” public policies, and even though I wish I did not really believe this, I feel this country would slip back to Jim Crow days at the drop of hat. It was only 44 years ago that Martin Luther King, Jr., was asassinated, and there is no such thing as “Heritage not Hate,” when the heritage in question was all hatred.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0

    1. SamFox

      To Dave & every one:

      The Founders had a huge problem with slavery. Not just that many wanted to end it, but the slave states were problematic over the issue in regards to the founding of the nation by all the states at that time.

      Here is some good food for thought on an oft misrepresented issue, the 3/5s clause in the Constitution..

      http://tinyurl.com/889nfgh

      The above link is to a very good article regarding the Founders, the Constitution & the slave states. The article only made one small error that the following link addresses. Remember the flap over the 3/5s clause in the Constitution? Many think it meant that blacks back then were regarded as only 3/5s human. That is a misconception that libs & progs push. Here is the skinny on the 3/5s clause:

      http://parablemania.ektopos.com/archives/2010/04/three-fifths.html

      http://www.ajc.com/opinion/neal-boortz-the-whole-798373.html

      We can see from these links that the US Constitution was not racist, as many, like Nancy Pelosi who oppose & accuse it of being, maintain.

      SamFox

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  5. Cameron

    Yes Ron Paul is right in one regard and that it violated the law of the Constitution…however, I believe the Constitution also stated from 1776 or whatever year it was that all men are equal, and should be treated equal if im correct so how would the south have the 3/8 clause that an African American counts as 3/8 of a person? That doesnt make sense, nor does it make sense how blacks were slaves and treated worse then a white slave owners pets. Being property of a white man clearly goes against the Constitution that all men are equal. Therefore, while Ron Paul is right that it violated the Constitution, all white Americans violated that for ALMOST 200 YEARS. There was no other way in which blacks would ever be an equal to whites unless Affirmative Actiont took Place, and the Civil Rights Act. The white race had over a 300 year head start on education, knowledge, and all social aspects of America that can never be erased or made up for so think about the big picture and entire American history when thinking about an act thats not even existed for 50 years

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 7

    1. SamFox

      Cameron, see my post above for the real truth on the 3/5s clause. It’s 3/5s, not 3/8s.

      Your post is incorrect, but what you said about the clause is a common misconception.

      I would have put my post under yours, but I had not read what you said till after posting.

      I am not attacking or dissing you. Just putting up a correction.

      No offense is meant. Peace.

      SamFox

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

    2. Ianjmacdonald

      300 year head start? Blacks have been around as long as whites have if not longer. Look at sub-Sahan Africa. Do you think that American blacks today would have been better off if their ancestors had not been brought to America? American blacks complain too much. The fact is that the average American black has a higher IQ and higher standard of living than his distant cousins in Western sub-Saharan Africa. They should thank their lucky stars that their ancestors were brought to America.

      Slavery did not violate the US Constitution. The Constitution did not state that all men were to be treated equally. >while Ron Paul is right that it violated the Constitution, all white Americans violated that for ALMOST 200 YEARS.

      The Constitution was enacted in 1787. Slavery was abolished by the 13th Amendment in 1865. You’re really ignorant.>There was no other way in which blacks would ever be an equal to whites unless Affirmative Actiont took Place, and the Civil Rights Act.Equality is a myth.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

  6. Dave

    “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? ”

    Me:
    The Problem: Tribal warfare. You think one group of people CAN NOT take away your rights? Then what is our struggle for LIBERTY, right now, all about? Call it what you want, but one group will always threaten your abstract, philosophical, theoretical “inalienable” rights, one way or another. What was it, 6 million Jews, took their theoretical “inalienable” human, natural, civil rights with them into furnaces and gas chambers. Thousands of Africans took their individual liberties with them into the shackles of American slavery; slavery in America: the “Land of the Free,” struggling for a “More Perfect Union,” whose free and brave fought for the rights to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness? Hundreds of Japanese Americans took their inalienable rights with them into American Concentration camps in the 40′s. Inalienable natural rights were killed along with their owners, Native Americans, on Private Properties conquered by U.S. Cavalry hordes. NO ONE CAN TAKE THEM FROM YOU? You must be a naive idealist. I’m a realist. Sure, nobody can “TAKE” my rights away, if I choose to die for them in a worst case scenario, sure: “Give me Liberty or give me Death.” But if I don’t have the backbone or intestinal fortitude to make a stand for my “inalienable” rights in front of the long end of barrel, as probably you don’t either, because we are members of a gutless idled culture of laxed principles and values, then they will always be constantly threatened. Right this second, we are slaves, even now, to the Federal Reserve System – so much for your hypothetical “inalienable” rights.

    I think the Libertarian Party is way too broad in its focus, “the world”. To borrow from Christian Scripture, if you can’t take care of the little things, why worry about the rest? And, if you can’t get your own house in order, how will you bring anything else to order? The Libertarians and Constitutionalist should unite on the principle ideas to form one real strong third party to give the Republicrats a real run for their money, (IRS), and redirect their primary focus to the United States, alone. I’m a true American, you can’t get any more patriotic than to be suspicious of all government, politicians, authority, and herd/gang mentality. My RIGHTS are simply mine because, (*pump shotgun*), I say they are. If you want to mess with my rights, come and get ‘em. It’s LIBERTY or DEATH!

    If you aren’t being represented, it’s because you have failed to represent YOURSELF. If you don’t vote, you can’t cry. If you DO vote, and you’re still butt-hurt, become an activist, join a group, a cause: you’re gonna have to have some butch, pep, and push. A large group can have more influence through civil disobedience, THAT IS VERY AMERICAN. Besides that, if you don’t KNOW your rights, you DON’T HAVE ANY, period, end of story!

    My civil, natural, human, inalienable, (and any other embellishment you wanna give them) RIGHTS, are not universal rights, they are AMERICAN rights, because young men and woman died horrible god-awful deaths so you can ramble your naive, fool-hearty, idealistic head off. Can I get an AMEN? Hear, hear?

    Report this comment

    Highly rated. What do you think? Thumb up 16 Thumb down 1

  7. Dave

    I’m a HUGE Ron Paul Fan. I’m very libertarian-leaning in my politics. I don’t have a “gang” mentality, however, in the sense that I refuse to hear-out and reason with other ideologies. I still need to do more research on the effects of the Civil Rights act. What I do know, however, is that it is VERY EASY for a WASP, (White Anglo Saxon (male) Protestant) in the USA to not support a Civil Rights act that forces private businesses to include racial “minorities” in thier hiring practices; because, discrimination and segregation, lynching, and other injustices where not generally perpetraded against them in mass. FOUR HUNDRED YEARS of institutionalized racism, including slavery and various acts of genocide and concentration camps (reservations & plantations) have historically in this country and abroad have been perpetrated against peoples of brown skin complexion. If I was a Black Man in America, especially in the Jim Crow days, and If I had children that I had to feed and a family to support, but couldn’t get a decent paying job just because of my skin color, YOU’RE DAMN RIGHT I WOULD DESIRE AND VOTE IN SUCH A CIVIL RIGHTS ACT that prevented any private business to discriminate against me on the basis of my ethnicity.

    Did the Civil Rights Act fail in its intended purpose? Many of you say it did, Congressman Ron Paul says it did, but I can’t help but to wonder if some of you are simply holding on to ideological ideals at all cost irregardless of this Country’s shameful, hurtful, and harmful RACIST, BIGOTED, and HATEFUL, and UNJUST past. Libertarian ideals are IDEAL, in a perfect world. Unfortunately, the White Supremecist tradition of this country never lent itself to a “more perfect union,” and the rights to equal justice for all individuals of all racial groups is just as important to the rights of provate properties and free markets.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 5

    1. Ianjmacdonald

      Go peddle that white guilt somewhere else. We’re not interested.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  8. Glenn

    For those of you that failed history and/or have poor reading comprehension skills, the Civil Rights Act didn’t create civil rights. It was based on the idea that all white people are inherently racist. The only way any white person: John Kerry, Al Gore, Bill Clinton, etc would ever hire a woman, an African American, etc was if they were compelled to do so by law. Ditto for every college in the country including Stanford, Harvard, Brown, American U, etc.

    The only failure I see is the prevailing attitude in DC – that every white person is racist and would only hire a non-white person if the law compelled them to do so. Ditto for the ultra liberals who run every college and university in the country. This Acts renewal confirms DC’s belief that these institutions are all run by racists.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 8

    1. squishi

      If your comments are a reflection of reading comprehension skills and astute knowledge of American history rather than pure hyperbolic ramblings of a bitter person w/ a serious case of self-victimization w/ a dash of paranoia… I’ll happily sit in the idiot section!

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  9. Keto XL

    why are u people talking about nonsense

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 10

  10. Demian

    So far I agree with Congressman Ron Paul on all his issues but I’m a little surprised here. It used to be that in order to get a good job you had to be male and white. Now it is not so much the case but we still have some problems. There are many women on the work force for example where they are being sexually harassed and paid less for the same amount and level of work their male counter parts do. There have been laws in place help protect them and these issues are less frequent than they could be. I believe in the constitution and individual rights of business owners but you also have to protect the rights everyone. Businesses should hire people because of their qualifications and not race or gender. They should not be made to hire a minority if they are less qualified and on the same token they should not discriminate against some one who is qualified no matter if they are minority or not. I’m sure if it was not for the civil rights act my wife and I would not be where we are at today and same with many other people. I know of a WWII vet who is a great man of good moral character who came home from the war and could not buy a home because he was Mexican. That is just wrong that the banks would not lend him money unless he was to buy a home in the “Mexican neighborhoods.” If he wasn’t allowed to buy a home he could afford where he pleases then why should the government send him to war if they will not help protect his right to peruse the American Dream? I’m a strong believer if the national government is not going to protect the civil rights of people color and women and leave the decisions to the states then the national government should not be able to draft them.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 3

  11. roderick anderson

    civil rights hasnt worked? whos that in the white house?

    Report this comment

    Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 11 Thumb down 15

    1. Scott

      Our President?

      Do I win a cookie for getting that question right?

      There is a inherent problem when we still hold something as high as a man being elected to president being such a grand event because of his/her ethnicity. The media did nothing to help this back in 2008. By directing so much focus on how spectacular it was to elect a black man as president, you actually make the focus more about race over everything else…which is a step in the wrong the direction.

      It shouldn’t matter, yet by making it a issue you perpetuate the problem that much more.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

      1. squishi

        For America to have elected a Black president for the first time in our history, when Black people have been in America before “America”‘s inception, that’s remarkable. That Black people spent centuries as slaves, sharecroppers, 2-3rd class citizens, legally segrgated from the American dream, and now to have elected someone from that very race to represent the greatness of our country is incredible.

        Let’s not pretend America just loves the idea of a Black president so much that we elected one the first chance we got. I can think of three black ppl who ran for this highest office off the top of my head, if Americans (or Black Americans as it’s rumored) wanted a simply Black president so badly, it would have happened already. I give my generation due credit for electing Obama. Many Black ppl have personal stories of being qualified or one of the best but being unacknowledged. It’s called the Black tax, lol. As evidenced this Harvard Law grad professor had to deal w/ everything from being a Black supremacist to a terrorist fist jabbing operative born in a foreign land.

        Racism is at an all time high. Many closet racists’ were brought into the daylight w/ Obama’s election. They didn’t realize how far America has come since the Jim Crow hay days. And now they “want their country back”

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1

        1. Ianjmacdonald

          I just wish that Attorney general Eric Holder would fairly enforce the laws against voter intimidation. Google “black panther voter intimidation” and you will see what I mean.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        2. ianqmacallister

          America was not interested in voting for Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton or any other obvious charlatan put forward by the blacks. By the way, Obama coasted through by virtue of his skin color. There is no “black tax” but rather naked black privilege.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  12. Imamu Ankh-Ra El

    Ron Paul is correct on all accounts, the civil rights act is a scam so the big wigs can get more power over peoples lives. And another way to keep their Chattel in place and under control. Repeal it.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 5

    1. squishi

      chattel? reading your comment, I wouldn’t expect any less.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  13. gen

    Honestly I find it hard to believe that the civil rights act would be over turned, as a woman in a interracial marriage living in the south I go through the stares from both sides the idiot questions and constant wondering whether it’s just me or is it still 1934? Not to mention my working environment and their overly politically correct attitudes. It would be nice if we didn’t see race ….but given current and past events I doubt we will see an end to racial arguments. Ron has some really great points but it is going to be a tooth and nail battle.

    Report this comment

    Highly rated. What do you think? Thumb up 14 Thumb down 3

    1. Ianjmacdonald

      >It would be nice if we didn’t see raceWhy? It is human nature to see race.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  14. Benjamin

    If you did not have the act you would have had whites calling blacks nigger at work and still having blacks and women getting paid $ .50/hr while a while male gets paid $50/hr.

    Are do you hate blacks? Or is it that you keep your wife on a chain and tell her to keep her mouth shut? I bet you hate lincoln. Did your family own slaves?

    Report this comment

    Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 4 Thumb down 31

    1. Casey

      No.

      Read the effing page. Not supporting the Civil Rights Act =/= Bigotry. Does it occur to you that there are other ways to fight racism and sexism besides the Civl Rights Act?

      “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.”

      Ignore the fact that Ron Paul said he wants to promote racial harmony and liberty, he’s obviously a hateful racist because he doesn’t approve of the Civil Rights Act. *sarcasm*

      Report this comment

      Highly rated. What do you think? Thumb up 21 Thumb down 1

      1. squishi

        Other ways? Hmmm… it’s strange bc I don’t remember everyone clamoring to find ways for races to get along, unless plessy v. ferg is your idea of “other ways”. After slavery, during the Reconstruction Era, we didn’t need legislation to make things available. Black people were actually quite productive in society during that brief period. Sharecropping, Jim Crow, etc etc became law, it would make sense that law would likewise be needed to undo the legalized racism.

        President Johnson had to wrangle for that bill and put his presidential legacy on the line. If there were so many other options for everyone getting along, if racial harmony was on it’s way anyway, why the vitriol and hatred after it was passed? A piece of legislation that allows a Black kid to eat at a lunch counter should not create a scene of verbal and physical violence. Paul said as it’s written even then he wouldn’t have voted for it. The civil rights movement put pressure on the white house to act in the best interst of our country’s future. The Civil Rights Act was brought forth. And we’re the better for it.

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

        1. Ianjmacdonald

          Barry Goldwater ended racial segregation in his family department stores, and he was instrumental in ending it in Phoenix schools and restaurants and in the Arizona National Guard. He also opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act, contending that it was unconstitutional, and he backed restrictive amendments to earlier civil rights legislation.In my business, I cannot afford to discriminate against blacks. The color i care about is green. In my personal life, on the other hand, I associate with my own kind.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  15. Casey

    I assume Ron Paul would be against the ADA (Americans With Disabilities Act) with the same reasoning? It does, after all, force public businesses to build their property in a certain way to be accessible, pay for that accessibility, and makes them cater to a certain population.

    Without the government passing that act, is it realistic to think that the invisible hand of the market would guide businesses to making themselves wheelchair accessible? There are disability advocate groups that may organize boycotts, but I feel that largely, they are not numerous enough to affect business interests. Would it be worth it if the ADA had never passed?

    What are your opinions on this?

    Report this comment

    Highly rated. What do you think? Thumb up 32 Thumb down 11

    1. Baker

      Casey,

      Economic utlity in terms of business dictionary.com is

      “Ability of a good or service to satisfy one or more needs or wants of a consumer.”

      Utility is an abstract concept that manifests itself in numerous forms including time, form, place, and various other asepcts.

      For example, fast food restuarants increase their time utility by providing drive through windows because it increases the speed of service.

      Following this, I believe that businesses, whether forced or not, would endorse at least a basic level of handicap-accessible architecture/design (a short-run, one time cost) because it would increase their total economic utility, create an advantage over businesses who did not participate, and thereby increase long-run profits.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 7

      1. Casey

        Will it provide a significant profit to cater to handicapped people? Are we big enough as a demographic to sway buisinesses to accomodate us? I rarely see another person in a wheelchair besides myself in a store at a single time. I don’t think a store would notice if there were no people with disabilities at all shopping there.

        It is hard to use drive through windows as a comparison. The roads are packed with people who have cars. People in wheelchairs are VERY scarce in comparison. I have a hard time believing people with disabilities will be able to gather a good enough representation to earn accomodations the libertarian way.

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 4

        1. Baker

          I understand and agree that the population of wheelchair-handicapped people is scarce at a given point in time and in general. However, I do not believe that the population is small enough to be ignored by businesses.

          I am not well rehearsed in exact regulation requirements of ADA, yet I was under the impression that it endorsed universal design. If that it correct, you must remember that both abled and disabled people enjoy the benefits of this particular architecture. This being said, I feel the mutual benefits would play a factor in a business’ decision on whether or not to implement handicappable architecture.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1

        2. Ianjmacdonald

          A business has an incentive to accommodate disabled people. However, I do not support giving disabled people the right to sue just because a businessman fails to build his business to their specifications. Respect for property rights is the cornerstone of a free society.Did you know that a deaf person sued for not being hired as a lifeguard? The managers of the beach were concerned that the deaf person may not hear drowning screams for help. The ADA lawyers didn’t care. To the ADA, life and death issues take a back seat when it comes to justifying their jobs.The apartment I live in was built so that people in wheelchairs could use the sinks. After all, the apartment owners didn’t want to get sued for violating the ADA. The problem is that every time I want to wash my hands or do the dishes, I have to stoop over. It’s very uncomfortable for me.

          A small business owner in Texas found out that one of his employees, who was cooking in the business’ kitchen, recently tested HIV positive. Instead of firing the employee, the businessman wanted to give the man another job in the business that would take him out of the kitchen, but would pay him more and ensure that his customers would not be exposed to the virus.

          Well, not only did the employee refuse the newer, higher-paying job, he went out and found a lawyer that was prepaired to take the businessman to court for violating the cook’s rights under the Americans with Disablities Act.

          Customers found out about it and quit eating at this restaurant. The businessman couldn’t afford to defend himself in court. So, his business folded.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    2. Brook-Ann Young

      This is very true! Thanks for pointing that out. My husband is wheelchair bound and without the ADA he would not be able to go anywhere. Which is unfair and to whom a wheelchair bound person not being able to enjoy a meal at a restaurant or the government regulation that made that “private property” business owner put in handicap ramps? As is is there is too many business that are not accessible for the disabled. Or further more “Big government” mandating the regulation that the black man must be served or hired. If Ron Paul doesn’t believe in this….I don’t believe in HIM

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 12

    3. Cheryl

      Casey, the ADA addition to the Civil Rights Act had a double edged sword attached to it. Businesses were able to legally fire disabled employees if they were not able to accomodate the job or the workplace for that employee. My brother lost his job BECAUSE of the ADA. He has cerebral palsy but is able to walk and talk, though not well on either. His workplace was looking to hire a “relative” but couldn’t fire him until the ADA paved the way for them.
      My point is, though I am sure it helped some people, and that it had good intentions, the unintended fallout hurt many others. This is what happens when politicians try to control ANYTHING.
      What Ron Paul is saying, and I agree, is that it should never be government who steps in and forces an individual to to run a business this or that way. To meet quotas and such based on sex or race or disabilities…. I lived through those times as many of us have and agree with Dr. Paul that is just exacerbated the entire concept of “race” as something that can, and did, divide us even more.
      Do you think that it is OK for you, as a disabled person, to get a job that someone else is more qualified for because you are disabled?
      Put that shoe on for a minute.
      I am a white woman, without a disability and I am not a “woman of color” either. I have never obtained a job or lost a job based on anything outside of my control or the free choice of the people who hired me. I EARNED the ability to compete for a position by attending college paid for by me.
      I do know that I have NOT obtained a job because I was not a “woman of color” as my positions have always been at Universities.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1

      1. Casey

        I’m sorry, I’m confused about the story about your brother; you say that the ADA allowed the company to fire him? Why couldn’t the company fire him before the ADA? Was there another government regulation preventing that?

        I don’t think that at all. I don’t want any job that somebody else doesn’t better, and I would say actually that this is something a handicapped person knows better than anyone; it would not satisfy me at all to be in a place I’m not meant to be doing something somebody else could do better. It’s just awkward, makes me feel like I’m a burden, and I don’t prefer getting by on mercy or government force.

        In fact, if the correct answer is that I need to suck it up and either rely upon charity given by people voluntarily, or just fail in a merit based society, I respect that. I don’t measure a just and free society by how it benefits me, I honestly care about the liberty of society and the rights of businesses. I’m really bringing up this question not just for the sake of people in wheelchairs and otherwise disabled, but also for the people who are in their lives. This is beyond just my welfare.

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        1. Cheryl

          Yes, there was as he worked for the County jail as a janitor.
          A jailer threw him against a wall (easy to do when you are NOT handicapped as this jailer was) as he had just hung up the phone with his soon-to-be ex-wife and was “angry.” My brother pressed charges and won. Thereafter, no one in the “law enforcement” in that county jail liked him…but they couldn’t get rid of him as he would be able then to sue the county.
          Lo and behold, the great government came up with “reasonable accomodations” with the ADA so they found their loophole to fire him. There were law firms, and still are, that represent companies against you (a disabled person) and USE the ADA to do it.
          Don’t get me wrong, outside of not have a disability myself, I have “lived” with it closer than most with a brother who I love very much.

          I am glad you brought the ADA up. It isn’t just about race and the reverse discrimination that Civil Rights Act brought forth escalating the problems of racism and discrimination. Disabled people are feeling the backlash of the ADA right now as people of color felt after 1964. You are looked at in the workplace by people who probably think you got your job “because” you were crippled and that you are taking that job from someone else who deserves it more than you. I would hate that and I am sure you do. Then there are the others who really aren’t disabled who are taking advantage of the ADA and ruining it for those of you who really are disabled. Example: Service dogs. People are buying vests online and putting them on their nasty biting dog with no training so they can take them everywhere…RUINING it for people with real service dogs that they really do rely on.

          OK, My point with these examples is the “blowback” or unintended consequences of government interference rarely ends well.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  16. Black Order

    Rights are natural, inalienable, inherent in all.

    Government has no say in the matter.

    There is no such thing as “Civil” rights.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 5

    1. 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.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 12

      1. 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?

        Report this comment

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

        1. 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.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 6

  17. 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.

    Report this comment

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

    1. Sherry

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

      Report this comment

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

  18. 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.

    Report this comment

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

    1. 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.

      Report this comment

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

    2. 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.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1

  19. 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.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 4

    1. 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.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 3

    2. 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.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 5

    3. 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?

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4

      1. 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?

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2

    4. 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.

      Report this comment

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

  20. 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

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 2

  21. 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!

    Report this comment

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

  22. 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?

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1

  23. 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.

    Report this comment

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

  24. 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.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 3

  25. 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?

    Report this comment

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

    1. 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.”

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  26. 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.

    Report this comment

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

    1. 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.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0

  27. 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.

    Report this comment

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

    1. 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.

      Report this comment

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

      1. 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.

        Report this comment

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

        1. 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.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 7

          1. 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.”

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0

          2. 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.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  28. 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.

    Report this comment

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

    1. 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.

      Report this comment

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

      1. 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

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 7

        1. 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.)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 5

          1. Ben

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

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 7

        2. 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

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 5

        3. End the Fed

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

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 5

        4. 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.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        5. 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.”

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

        6. 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.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        7. 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?

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    2. 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.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  29. 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.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 5

    1. 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.

      Report this comment

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

  30. 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.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1

  31. 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.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0

  32. 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

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5

    1. 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.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 1

      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.

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0

  33. 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?

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0

  34. 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.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

  35. 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

    Report this comment

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

    1. 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.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 4

      1. Machine

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

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

1 2 3 6

Leave a Reply