Civil Rights Act




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

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

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

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

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

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

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



style="display:inline-block;width:728px;height:90px"
data-ad-client="ca-pub-3666212842414688"
data-ad-slot="9478233584">

Likes(1)Dislikes(0)

568 Comments:

  1. Sadly, there is a large number of people opposed to Obama because he's black.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

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

    • How would you know? Did you get this notion from the propaganda machine?

      I've met very, very few people who oppose Obama because he (half) black. The vast majority of people I know do oppose Obama, because his every step is toward more and more government control, and because he clearly opposes Liberty.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3

    • As equally sad, there is a large number of people who support Obama because he is black.

      I thought we were voting for a man to lead our nation. Not what our favorite color is.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

    • There's a lot of blacks who hate whites and want us displaced and dead, too. I wonder if you are going to be outraged at them.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  2. Notice that nowhere in this statement does Ron Paul say he believes in the equality of all races? He just says he's in favor of "racial harmony".

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 14 Thumb down 22

    • Do you think that he does not believe in equality of the races?

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 4

      • Why should he? The scientific evidence does not show that talents are equally distributed among all races. Go read The Bell Curve.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        • It's not an appeal to authority; it's simply a question. Don't accept anything just because some authority figure says so. Have you read any of the works by Arthur Jensen, J. Philippe Rushon, Michael Levine, or Jared Taylor?

          Surely you're heard of the great geneticist Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza? He wrote The History and Geography of Human Genes. In the introduction he states that there is no such thing as "race," but then he spends the next 1088 pages documenting the very thing he says does not exist. There are in fact non-trivial, heritable average group differences. If you do not like the term "race," fine; feel free to use whatever term you like. Breed, sub-species, varietal. Cavalli-Sforza likes the word "group." And it just so happens that "group" just happens to match up with our everyday understanding of race.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        • So you say that there's no such thing as race?

          Did you know that forensic serologists can determine the racial mixture of an unknown suspect by simply examining DNA material left at a crime scene? That's because "race" is reflected down at the level of DNA. (Don't like the word "race"? Fine, use some other word. Breed, subspecies, varietal, group, or cluster of alleles. Don't let the philosophical word argument get in the way of understanding the science here.)

          10 Fallacies of Race Denial

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ZurClqPGLc

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  3. I feel Tammy's pain! That said, there is NO WAY I will vote for anyone else but Ron Paul! In spite of our disagreements, I'M VOTING RON PAUL! Period. That said, I and others who also will vote for him have the same shuttering down the spine feeling that Tammy gets when he says things about the Civil Rights Act, and Dept. of Education. Well, honestly, I don't care about the Dept. of Education issue, (not because I don't care about education) but it pales in comparison to the Civil Rights Act. Listen, I don't know the ethnicity of those of you who are against it. But my dad is a victim of racism, and a store cashier threw money at my great grandmother's face. We're Hispanics, JFYI. I must imagine that it's easy to talk down the Civil Rights Act being a member of the most advantaged race in the land. The Civil Rights initiatives were fought long and hard for many decades by oppressed peoples who suffered shame because of Jim Crow laws and rape, theft and murder by the hands of white people. Ok, I kept saying private businesses. How about we keep it on incorportaed businesses and public businesses? When you incorporate you become a "creature of the state" anyways. Corporations are subject to state regulations anyways. I don't know. Just some thoughts.

    But Tammy, Ron Paul is the only candidate I can vote for. I can not vote for anyone else. I wouldn't worry about it. He's a very smart man and I'm sure he would try to phase out anything he doesn't like. Beside that, we have congress and the judicial system to help slow things down. LOL. Checks and balances, and also referendum just in case we don't like something. That is how a democracy is supposed to work. But, above all these issues, WE got to END THE FED, foreign aid, global wars, policing and nation building, and all the corersion, and all that crap that is smothering us to death. VOTE RON PAUL 2012!

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 2

    • Dave,

      I definitely see your point here. It seems like Ron Paul's major focus lately is the fed, foreign aid, and global wars. I don't know how far he could go with ending the civil rights act, dept. of ed, etc., and I am sure he would implement gradual changes in any case. It says in this article, in fact, that he was the ONLY one to oppose the civil rights act, which tells me that trying to end it won't fly anyway.

      I do want to say a few things about the dept. of ed, though. Even though it may not seem as important as the Civil Rights Act, I wouldn't brush it off as unimportant. The Civil Rights Act is much broader than the dept. of ed. It does not specifically target children in public schools. The dept. of ed works especially for children in schools -- it enforces legislation to ensure all children have equal opportunities and prohibits discrimination against faculty and students. I personally see the dept. of ed. as important (I am an educator) because of the strong desire of parents to see their children have a better future. Adults will often undergo discrimination in all sorts of situations, and they may or may not fight against it. But when it comes to their child's education, I think many will fight harder and expect more from the schools because they are supposed to be safe and fair. Some people (unfortunately) learn to accept discrimination as the norm, but not so easily when it comes to their kids.

      Even at a national level, it is never nice to see racism or discrimination (I, for one, think it is disgusting), but to see or hear of a child suffering from it, I innately feel much more appalled. During my student teaching, I remember one young man tell me that he was embarrassed of his Hispanic ethnicity. He would rather be white, he said. This stems from discrimination and racism. It was heartbreaking. I cannot speak for others, but I don't think it is far-fetched to guess that many feel the same way I do. The dept. of ed works at the national level to keep discrimination from happening in schools and to encourage diversity. Obviously, discrimination still happens, and people can argue about the effectiveness of the dept., but I worry that if states were left to enforce their own legislation, than children from some states will suffer the consequences. While there is legislation that is not so great (ie, No Child Left Behind), other types are considered very significant, particularly the ones dealing with equal opportunity and civil rights. I personally want to see the United States as a place that will stand against racism and discrimination in all the states. In my opinion, civil rights and education are of national importance.

      At the same time, I do see your points. Worrying about what "might" happen won't do much good, especially when you see a candidate who really wants to dramatically change the way things are going. I really do appreciate Paul's view of not trying to fix a broken system. If something is no longer working, then why shouldn't we try something else? I think Paul stands out because he is not concerned with the political status quo, even when it concerns highly controversial topics with his republican peers. I admire this attitude, and it highly sways my own attitude towards him!

      Thanks for your comments, Dave!

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3

      • A friend of mine refers to public high school as "Pre-Jails."

        School taxes make up the lion's share of property taxes but what do we get? A dumbed own population that believes government will solve all problems. This must cease.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2

        • Describing all public high schools as "pre-jails" is a bit of an overgeneralization. There are really good high schools, usually in the higher income neighborhoods where people want to invest their property, state, and local taxes to maintain quality schools (in addition to the federal funding). The ones that are really bad are actually not funded well at all, not in all cases, of course, but in many. On the other hand, there are school districts in lower income communities that have been very successful. Usually this takes a team of educators who have a lot of experience and dedication and are supported by their local and state government. Wake county school district in North Carolina is a really good example of a success story for both lower and higher income neighborhoods. They had a very good economic plan and strong school board to accomplish this.

          There are always those schools that are just not successful for a number of reasons, but taking money out of the school system never makes a school better.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2

        • Wrong. Linking black academic failure to inadequate educational resources has evolved into a bogus yet almost universally embraced Scientific Truth. If there were a Mendacity Hall of Fame, this “how can they learn when the toilets are broken” argument would have its own wing. Just as the sun rises in the east and sets in the west, “everybody knows” that blacks do poorly on standardized tests, fail to graduate, and must take remedial courses if they get into college only because wealthy white suburban schools outspend inner city schools. This assertion is easily disproven with readily available statistics, and it has been repeatedly shown that dramatically increased spending has virtually no effect on test scores. None of this has undermined this counterfeit Scientific Truth. In fact, in a bizarre twisting of logic, it is sometimes argued that no matter how much money is spent on blacks, they will perform inadequately if some whites somewhere get more. According to this thinking, if white schools are defunded black scores will soar.

          Public schools in Washington, D.C., are among the most lavishly funded schools in the country, and yet the performance of the (overwhelmingly minority) students is abysmal.

          The chief aim of US public K-12 education over the last half century has been to get children in the 85 to 90 IQ range (i.e., mainly blacks and Hispanics), most of whom are poorly motivated, to perform as if they were well-motivated students with IQs of 100 or higher. Billions have been wasted on every educational gimmick imaginable, and even larger futile government expenditures are on the horizon. It is almost like drug addiction.

          Pour as many billions of dollar down the educational rat hole as you want, you will never be able to undo the unequal distribution of talent bestowed by Mother Nature.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  4. I've read a few of the comments here and what a lot of people seem to be missing is that reverse discrimination is not only inefficient, it violates the fundamental liberties of those under its foot. Purchasing labor isn't any different than purchasing anything else of value.

    This is like the government telling you that you have to make certain percentages of your purchases at various stores to make sure everyone gets the business. However you claim that you should be able to spend your money as you see fit. Employers should be given the same right.

    When it comes to the public sector, they are spending our money in essence, so there must be a higher standard. However, quotas aren't the answer, as we cannot assume that the best people for the jobs are going to be distributed by some formula based upon race or gender. This is supposed to be the point here, to have the best people hired.

    It is also clear that such legislation worsens relations instead of improving them, as Ron points out. People generally don't need much of a reason to hate, but when they see racial or gender bias depriving them of their livelihood, or the livelihood of others, now we've really given then a reason.

    The sooner we are rid of these ill conceived, conunterproductive, and oppressive constraints the better, and it's great that we have someone like Ron who is not afraid to act upon principles rather than just look to appease people, as is the norm in Washington.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 4

  5. You have a "better" idea? Let's hear it. Laissez-faire?

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

    • Yes. Respect for private property right, individual liberty, free exchange of goods and services, no bailouts for floundering industries, currency backed up by precious metals, and end to the Federal Reserve and its handmaiden fractional reserve banking.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  6. 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.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 2

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

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2

      • 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...:-)

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

        • 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.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

          • 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”

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

        • 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.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

      • Are you in favor of racial quotas?

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  7. 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?

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 3

    • 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.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2

      • 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.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      • 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?

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  8. 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.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3

    • 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

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      • 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

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  9. 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.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0

    • 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

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  10. 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

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 7

    • 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

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

    • 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.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

  11. "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?

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

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

  12. 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.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 5

  13. 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.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 8

    • 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!

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  14. why are u people talking about nonsense

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 10

  15. 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.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 3

  16. roderick anderson

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

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

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

    • 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.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

      • 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"

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1

        • 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.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        • 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.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  17. 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.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 5

  18. 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.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

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

  19. 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?

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

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

    • 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*

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

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

      • 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.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

        • 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.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  20. 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?

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

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

    • 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.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 7

      • 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.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 4

        • 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.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1

        • 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.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    • 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

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 12

    • 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.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1

      • 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.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        • 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.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


+ 1 = four

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>