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.

(If you’ve found a spelling or transcription error, please notify us anonymously by selecting the misspelled text and then pressing Ctrl+Enter. Thank you!)

  • SeekingKnowledge

    In France, there are no distinctions based on race and I have noticed that the people seem to openly accept all races. In the UK, any quotas or favouritism is illegal. In Germany, all races, sexes, and social backgrounds have equal rights.

    In South Africa, they have a form of Affirmative Action, this is what I found:

    The policies of Employment Equity and, particularly, Black Economic empowerment have been criticised both by those who view them as discriminatory against white people, and by those who view them as ineffectual.[42][43][44][45][46]

    These laws cause disproportionally high costs for small companies and reduce economic growth and employment.[39] The laws may give the black middle-class some advantage but can make the worse-off blacks even poorer.

    • classicliberalism

      I read by Thomas Sowell-a black man-that the black middle class was actually growing prior to the civil rights movement and the laws being against discrimination. The anti-discrimination laws cost companies money when they are forced to hire people they don’t want to, when they are forced to hire people that aren’t as qualified, which then makes companies go oversea where there aren’t all the anti discrimation laws or massive regulations. This, obviously, leaves more people out of work here.

    • mmmdee

      @SeekingKnowledge In American, there is absolutely no discrimination in work places, no discrimination by the police, and no discrimination period. Minorities and Privileged people are equal. Let’s get rid of all the laws now. Everything is obviously equal everywhere.

      • ianqmacallister

        No law will ever make blacks equal to whites.

        • mmmdee

          @ianqmacallister laws will help even out the inequality as time passes.

          • ianqmacallister

            That is nothing but wishful thinking on your part. No law can raise the average black IQ to match the average white IQ. No law can force blacks to adopt better study habits and a work ethic, or make them more future-oriented, or less sexually promiscuous.

            I am sick of silly liberals and their delusional thinking.

  • SeekingKnowledge

    I completely agree with the statement that “this law undermined efforts to achieve a color-blind society and increased racial strife.” @dariusjjohnson It is true that some people will discriminate, but that is ALL RACES. One of my teachers in high school blatantly favored her race (African American) over others, which caused the rest of us to sit silently and listen, not participating in class discussions (it was a US Government class, too!).

    Laws that promote Native American restitutions and Affirmative Action does not promote equality… it does the opposite.

    • classicliberalism


      Communism claimed the lives of 100 million people trying to make things ‘equal’

      • SeekingKnowledge

        Communism was not about race. I don’t see your point on this one.

        • classicliberalism


          Your claim is that the government has an obligation to take people out of poverty and make them equal. I’m saying communism tried to ‘make people equal’ (the same way the multiculturalists today and ‘civil rights people’ try to make things equal) and millions of people died. There just won’t be equality no matter what. There will always be some group or person that is better off than another. There will always be someone richer than you or smarter than you or better-looking than you, etc. Liberals are always whining about how things are unfair and how certain people aren’t successful.

        • Liberatino

          yea its about marginalizing the individualist, the bourgeois and the entrepreneur

  • dariusjjohnson

    i dont believe in Ron Pauls stance on ending the civil rights act, because some people well make it there duty to deny certain races their service and all that well do is cause more tension and im guessing most of that would be in the south, saying the civil rights act isnt the reason for why we are far more racially equal is not very smart, Just like with his stance on drugs, if people dont want to do drugs the fact that they become legal isnt going to turn them into a crack addicts. And for people that are racist they will be that way whether its legal/socially frowned upon or not. So if you made it ok for them to get a chance to demean there business in a way they can deny service based upon race, and try to show that they are better . than they’re going to take that chance every time they can. The civil rights act doesnt need to be changed in fifty years there should be little to no racism left, ending the act would set us back another 50 years.. although i dont agree with his stance on this topic, it doesnt matter because it is so far “out there” that it will never be passed, since he is the only one who voted against it. So I will vote for him , and i dont put his stance to this topic in that factor..

    • DrewJohnson

      You miss the whole point. If a business chooses to discriminate then it is their right to do so because it is their property and the government has no business controlling what they can and cannot do with their property or what contracts an individual can enter into (regardless of his motivation which can never be known) if we truly exist in a free society.

      • dariusjjohnson

        @DrewJohnson I don’t miss the point , all I’m saying is if people were given the chance to do that again it wouldn’t be better for our society at this point..

        • classicliberalism


          That’s not the point again. Where in the constitution does it say one has to associate with people they don’t like?

      • SamFox

        @DrewJohnson What Ron Recognizes that far to many people miss, is that if govt gets a foot in the door in arenas that are popular with a lot of voters, but are un-Constitutional, where will they go next?

        Paul is not FOR racism or discrimination. He is FOR liberty & freedom for all, even those who are stupidly small minded racists. Plus a lot of the public discrimination at restaraunts & other private businesses was driven by local ordinences & local govts. Many of the establishments didn’t choose to discriminate, they were forced to by local legislation. Not all, but many.

        Most business will go down the tubes if they discriminate. One color that ALL business peeps really like is green. We all spend the same color of money…

        Good points Drew.


  • dariusjjohnson

    I don’t believe in affirmative action i think the smartest or best person for the job should get it but i don’t mind where in some cases they have to interview a person of minority because some people dont give minorities a chance even if they are the best candidate. furthermore i do believe that the civil rights act did help end a lot of racial tension maybe not at first, but only once you meet, go to school with, work with, and see how a person of different color lives do you start to understand them and see that they are just the same as you in the end..

    • ianqmacallister

      @dariusjjohnson Affirmative action is not at all about having to interview minorities; it’s about lowering standards in order to enroll, hire, and promote “enough” non-Asian minorities to satisfy the racial bean counters. The problem is that the average white IQ in America is 102 while the average black IQ is 85. That 17 point different is slightly more than one standard deviation. This means that the average white person has a higher intelligence than 85% of the blacks, and thus any test for cognitive ability will per force discriminate against blacks. No law of man can undo what Mother Nature has wrought.

      Your statement assumes that racial tension is caused by lack of contact between members of different races. In my own case, I can tell you that I was a racial liberal through the end of the third grade. Starting fourth grade my school was integrated, and boy oh boy did I get an upclose, uncensored view of blacks over the next nine years, and I quickly learned that we are NOT “all the same.” By the time I graduated high school I wanted absolutely nothing to do with blacks.

  • harddrive1919





    • SamFox

      harddriveby, did you know that Ron sends some of his office expense $ back? He has never taken a taxpayer funded junket, he always votes against undeclared war & tax increases? That ending the racist war on drugs is a good thing?

      I take it you have no clue what you are talking about. But most of you Homer Simpson trolls from Media Matters don’t know much about him either.

      dariusjjohnson, you said,

      “furthermore i do believe that the civil rights act did help end a lot of racial tension maybe not at first, but only once you meet, go to school with, work with, and see how a person of different color lives do you start to understand them and see that they are just the same as you in the end.”

      I don’t think you know it, but you contradicted yourself. What follows after you said “…maybe not at first…” is how it would have happened without the civil rights thing. Most people were ahead of the curve & knew that racism is, well, very stupid & shows those who are so inclined to be of very small mind & probably don’t have much of a life.

      Ron was not against equality. He was against more big govt intrusion. He knew where it leads when govt gets it nose under our tent. They end up taking over the whole place! Look what we have now….


      • dariusjjohnson

        @SamFox I get what your saying , But not everyone was over that curve and some people never would have, if they weren’t forced in the first place that’s all i meant by that

        • SamFox

          @dariusjjohnson Some one forced against their will

          is of the same opinion still.

          Sure they forced. But there was a lot of hidden resentment that is still with us today. If the fed govt wanted to force anyone, they should have been going after local & state cops who did not provide equal protection under the law to ALL citizens as the Constitution requires. THAT would have been Constitutional.

          Force is faster, true. But it is not as effective or as long lasting as time. If they wouldn’t get over the curve force couldn’t do it either.

          Please remember, Ron is not against equality for all. He does warn against classifying people as groups instead of as individuals. It says a.. men, not all people groups, are created equal.


        • dariusjjohnson

          @SamFox I think you misunderstand me I never said Ron Paul is against equality for all. I like that he is against classyfing people as groups as i feel the same way. But i just dont agree with him on wanting to end the civil rights act.. other than that me and Ron Paul see eye-to-eye on most every other issue..

        • SamFox

          @dariusjjohnson I was not accusing you by my sentence or saying you thought other wise. I just threw that in for ‘just in case’ info. No worries M8!! 🙂

          By the way, where does the lead article say anything about ending civil rights act? I coulda missed it.

          Any hoody, what’s done is done. Let’s get a Constitutionalist like Ron Paul elected. Then a lotta this kind of stuff will fall into place.

          @ all readers here-

          If there is a better PRO-Constitutionalist candidate out there than Ron Paul, some one with a more consistent freedom & liberty for ALL voting record, for longer, PLEASE!!! Some body! Trot them out!

          Any one out there even almost as good as Ron Paul???? Do the research & get back. Thanks.


        • dariusjjohnson

          @SamFox Oh i threw that out there because people were commenting about it, because he voted against the act . my fault for listening to them.. but i agree .. Ron Paul for president..

        • SamFox

          @dariusjjohnson no worries 8*. Tis all good!

          No one candidate is going to please all the people all the time. But no one running can come close to Ron Paul’s 30+ year PRO-constitution voting record or platform.

          Some of them are now talking a bit like Ron, but NONE of them have his pro liberty & freedom for all voting record & platform or been more consistent.

          Have a good one every one!


        • classicliberalism


          There is never going to be equality, no matter how many laws or rules you instill. Some people are stupid, some are smart, some are gifted, some are talentless, etc. Instead of forcing people to associate with you, create your own system and your own circles.

    • FrankRoman


      Ah, I see: an anti-white bigot closes his kindergarten screed with a declaration that reveals what truly simmers under the surface. Just exactly HOW will your life improve once the white majority is gone? You are a racist and a bigot.

      • harddrive1919


        Don’t be so sensitive. There you go again getting your panties in a wad because I don’t share your teenage wet dream. Quit playing the race card and get off the video games kid. Ask your messiah ron paul that if he hates the govt so much, why has he been in it for most of his life. Why doesn’t he decline his govt healthcare? I’ll tell you why, since you need an adult to think for you…..because no private insurance would cover his old ASS….get off the gas and come with a better response moron….I will wear the title of racist coming from a reactionary idiot like yourself….good day FRANK…lmbao

        • classicliberalism


          Sensitive? You want to talk about sensitive, hardrive? Frank here seems very polite and well spoken unlike you. What is it with your marxists and anti-white folks that you get so nasty and immature (like saying ‘teenage wet dream’ and ‘go play video games, kid) that you can’t debate intelligently and without calling the person a racist or making remarks about their sex life or whatever? Show me one nation run by blacks or latins that is a first-world civilization.

        • SamFox


          Where did Ron say he hated govt? Ron Paul has been in govt because he is trying to get the fed govt back under the Constitution’s limits the US Founders put on it in our founding documents. .

          The title you wear is Homer Simpson. Cass Sunstein said your type is easy to manipulate. He was right.

          How long have you been shilling for Media Matters? You should hit Soros up for a raise. You have done a fine job of clouding up the thread with your Rules For Radicals tactics & misinformation.

          The fact that you really don’t say any thing & never back up what little you do should make him smile real big for ya & give you a nice pat on the head while telling you “Good little Homer! Keep up the BS misinformation for me. You do the [socialist control freak] ‘progressive’ movement proud!”


        • Ianjmacdonald

          @harddrive1919@FrankRoman Lefties are incapable of engaging in any kind of serious sustained debate on issues, so they resort to ritual defamation of their opponents. It’s as true of you as it is of Time Wise.

        • Ianjmacdonald

          Lefties have no problem recognizing a black person when it comes to enforcing privileges for blacks in contemporary America. If you’re asking me, then I would point you to J. Philippe Rushton and Michael Levine. “Race” is a signifier for continental origin. If in 1500 your ancestors lived in sub-Saharan Africa, then you are a Negro. If in 1500 your ancestors lived in Europe, then you are a Caucusoid.

        • Jen1982

          See, I disagree here. I usally do not agree a lot with the right side, Im more in the middle that leans a little left. However, Im thinking I really like Ron Paul. Me being in the middle, I usally see more hate coming from the right side and cant get anyone to debate me. Both sides tend to act like children a lot. The right side tends to be real close minded and its my way or the high way. Just the way I see it.

        • ianqmacallister

          And your point would be?

    • classicliberalism


      Before you insult conservatives for their supposed lack of intelligence, you might want to learn how to spell correctly.

      • harddrive1919

        And you might want to move out of your mother’s basement….i don’t care if I spell a word or two incorrectly on this dumb website idiot….you set your self up for that one moron

        • classicliberalism


          Here you go: making accusations about me that aren’t true as most blacks and hispanics and white liberals do when debating the issues of race. If you want whites and asians and others to not be so prejudice against blacks, you might want to learn how to speak intelligently, not make comments about people’s sex lives (as many blacks do when someone debates them on race), not get emotional and all that. I don’t care for Louis Farrakhan, but at least he speaks well and gets attention because he doesn’t say ‘yo, yo, yo’ or make comments about white men’s penis sizes or talk like a thug.

        • Ianjmacdonald


          Harddrive has no rational arguments. All he has are insults and infantile rage.

  • regisjbeakensr

    blacks have abused the system to where whites are fed up.anyone who came here after the war gets on the band wagon for slavery. my ass. 20% of blacks have slavery heritage and many were owned

    by blacks. less than 20% of whites owned blacks . italians were treated like blacks till they took over. AND MIGHT I ADD MANY WHITE MEN DIED FOR YOU OR DIXIE WOULD HAVE ONE. NORTHERN WHITES FREED YOU ASS not blacks like people are led to believe. and if i don’t want to live by blacks that is my right that was taken away. and if your interracial your black.

    • classicliberalism


      That’s the whole problem with anti-discrimination laws. If an employer doesn’t hire someone that the law requires them to, they get sued. Then when they do hire that person they are required to hire, it’s still the employee’s word against the employer. There are tons of people who scream ‘racism’ and discrimination just to get sympathy and money. The more laws you place against businesses (like anti-discrimination laws, affirmative action, higher taxes, etc), the more will go overseas and there will be less jobs here.

    • Jen1982

      If your interracial your black and white. Just saying. How cme white people deny them and black people do too?

      • ianqmacallister

        The average African-American is about 20% European by blood. In Barry Soetero’s case, he is half and half, but he has always decided to check the box that says “African-American” so that he could qualify for government-enforced racial privileges in education and hiring. He’s just another no-talent affirmative action baby.

  • jwpa13

    You can’t pass a law making people like each other. YOUCAN pasws laws making people go to the same schools, eat at the same restraunts and live in the same areas, thus allowing people to get to know each other. . If people don’t know each other HOW can they learn to love and accept each other. It’s easier to hate a stranger than to like him.

    • classicliberalism


      You can only hate someone (for any reason in your mind) if you have interactions with them. Not only that, but your DNA over millions of years tells you what to avoid and who to avoid based on your intution. I don’t need to tell you a tiger is dangerous. I don’t need to tell you it will hurt putting your hand on a hot stove. You learn these things.

    • Ianjmacdonald


      It is a much cherish liberal myth that hate and prejudice are generated by lack of contact. By golly if only blacks and whites were forced to mingle, they’ get to know and love each other, and everyone would end up holding hands and singing kumbaya.

      My school was integrated starting in 4th grade. Up until then I was a foolish liberal. After nine years of daily interactions with blacks, I graduated and wanted nothing more to do with them. I have structured my life so that the only time I have anything to do with a Negro is when they are handing me something over the counter.

  • regisjbeakensr

    ron paul does’nt have alzheimers i do.

  • regisjbeakensr

    keithline if you don’t have a thought to express the issues just read and learn something you wasted a comment. i won’t stoop to your level and tell you how i really feel about your comment., but if you think you hurt anyone we blew you off for what you are. sorry people too many are quite intelligent with all views having some truth to it. ty god bless peace be with you all.

  • I agree with Ron Paul on this one.

    You cannot force someone to like, or accept, someone else. Prejudice has existed, does exist, and will always exist. Every time we see, meet, or speak to someone new we get a fist impression. It’s not a choice we make, it’s inherent. It’s human nature.

    That’s not to say that our first impressions are always correct, just that we should stop behaving like it’s somehow immoral, or evil, to have them. What we can control, however, are our actions based upon those impressions. But that’s up to the individual, not the government. I refer to #3 Freedom of Thought, in my article:

    • kenta.takao

      I completely agree with your statement. The government can’t tell when a person is being racist and by developing a law trying to just that is highly ineffective and useless. There shouldn’t be a racial quota in companies but rather you get hired for your skills no matter what the color of your skin is.

      • SamFox

        @kenta.takao Good points.

        The govt could care less about racism. Govt cares only about control. They are using any issue they can to expand fed control over We The People. WTP are who they really don’t are for. Govt like to take our $, but they don’t care much for us.

        Their lack of care for the people is evident in one regard by the way they have trashed the economy & seek to destroy free market capitalism with high taxes & fees & massive regulation. Also in the way they put control strings on money stolen from people in all the states & sends some it back with said control strings firmly attached.

        Their is an element in govt that wants to make us all slaves, so I guess in that regard they are ‘equal opportunity’. Remember ‘workfare’? WF is about making slaves, a little at a time.

        If you want to know who was most against civil rights, it was the Dems. They fought tooth & nail against freedom & equality for blacks. You want to know what the ‘progressive’ movement thinks of people of color, go to YouTube & look up Margaret Sanger’s Negro Project. Also look up GB Shaw & find out what he thinks if ‘ you don’t produce enough’ & his take on a ‘humane gas’.


    • classicliberalism


      I agree, too! What annoys me most is that it’s only whites who have been forced really to follow these anti-discrimination laws. The civil rights people seem more to want to ‘stick it to whitey’ than they want equal protection and fair treatment for all. The more laws and regulations placed on businesses since the 60s (like the Civil Rights Act) the more they will leave the country and the more people will be out of work here.

  • regisjbeakensr

    ok i’m white and owe nobody anything i’m sick and tired of this poor me bull. how about i had to move from a town 12000 but jobs everywhere went the marines came out and they had to hire blacks to mkeep gov’t jobs so a town with 3 people black had to go to the city and get blacks in our town one was mailman my mother called me on the phone all upset she says” we got one right here” i lived in south florida funnier than hel this country now discriminates against whites. how about laziness they come to work cause trouble threaten the bosses both naacp and physically i didn’t put up with that kind

    i put a heavy bag speed bag strike back bag and 400lbs weights if they felt froggy we would visit my toys and i would say don’t ever threaten me again fired and beat same i am 5’9″ 230 15% bodyfat used to be 8

    • keithkline79

      Hahah, you are the most unintelligible moron EVER! Simply amazing.

      • Kraedi

        This man has already admitted to being old, dying, having bi-polar disorder, Alzheimer’s disease, and dementia, himself. So thanks, Captain Obvious. Keith, you lost an argument that you never even bothered to start. Try a bit harder in the future. You might actually change someone’s mind.

        • keithkline79

          Who’s got dementia, etc… Ron Paul or regisjbeakensr?

        • Kraedi

          @keithkline79 quoted from regisjbeakensr “i apologize for grammer and know i put sentences toether. i have alzheimers dementia and am glad i still can do this well. as for subjects if you try you can read it. i also have bipolar where my mind races.”

          Ron Paul does not seem to be showing signs of Dementia, not yet.

        • SamFox

          @keithkline79 Who’s got dementia? Those who don’t do their research on America’s best hope for a restoration of freedom & liberty for all.

          Those who only hear what candidates say at ‘debates’ without checking to see if they have already walked that talk, making sure that the candidate is consistent with his past record, platform & speeches.

          Ron Paul does have a ‘mental disease’. It’s called Giveusallourfreedomback Syndrome. Main symptom is Constitutionalitus.


  • Ian

    Sorry folks, the name “Tea Party” has been commandeered by theocratic authoritarian neocons, and the historical prank’s meaning has gone with it.
    What we need is a NEW prank…

  • Sandra

    The Civil Rights Act is not responsible for keeping black America down. Unlimited hereditary welfare, encouraged by white leftist plantation masters, bears the primary responsibility. Post-civil rights Black Americans were on their way up before they were herded into government funded slums and encouraged to address grievances by taking “free” money.

    • John Locke

      There you go again–it’s always someone else’s fault. Stop blaming others (always a “victim”) and making excuses for people who have no pride and are CONTENT to sit around and take federal money, have five kids by six different fathers, and not get up and contribute (only take) anything to society. Get off your ass and do an honest day’s work and stop blaming other people for your faults. Stop looking to the government to solve your problems.

      • gusjaster

        She’s saying the government CREATES problems and set Blacks up for decades of receiving free money, which in turn has instilled the laziness you speak of in many communities. You dumbass.

    • classicliberalism

      I read that, too, that blacks were moving into the middle class faster prior to all the ‘civil rights’ laws that were passed. Not that I am blaming whites for how blacks are, but the liberals have enabled them and annoyed whites by forcing them to do business and associate with people they don’t want to. I’d also argue blacks today are WORSE OFF than they were before then for the simple fact there wasn’t all the gang violence, wasn’t all the fatherless homes, wasn’t the welfare, etc.

  • Patriot Dave

    This is Dave, I changed my Screen Name. (You all probably could have guessed that. LOL.) Anyway:

    I have a couple of ideas I’d like to throw around and see what you all think about them.

    I watched the documentary about the Ron Paul Revolution, the origin of the Tea Party in 2007, and the 2007 campaign. I didn’t even know about Ron Paul back then; I wish I had and I wish I was a part of the movement back then. But, I see how all the grassroots support was pretty independent, and all fun.

    Idea one: I wouldn’t want to take away from the creativity, the individualism, or the fun away, but I wonder, since Ron Paul is a lot more well known these days, if we who support Ron Paul and this revolution, can reform and deploy a lot more seriously this time around. I wonder if we could somehow organize nationwide boycotts of Fox News, and all companies that advertise on the Fox Network. Maybe even boycott everything that has to do with fox, even their movies. If they aren’t going to take our candidate seriously, and black him out, then maybe it’s time to fight fire with fire, and become a more serious revolution, a political force to be reckoned with. I’m thinking we can write a letter, and have as many as we can petition it, send it to Fox, and send a copy to every company that advertises on Fox that we intend to boycott, until our candidate gets fair and equal air time, and interviews, and we’re going to be keeping track.

    Idea two: Do you guys think we can start up another Tea Party, and call it something along the lines as; “The Original Ron Paul Tea Party” founded 2007.

    Idea three: Does anyone think that it could be feasible to begin a nationwide 3RD Party Alliance, with all third party groups and fringe groups? Not that we are going to agree with each other on everything, but create a movement for the sole purpose of challenging the statist quo, and to bring a political fight to the establishment? Do you think that it could be possible to unite the Constitutionalist, the Libertarian Party, Green Peace, Peace and Freedom, ACLU, Free Church Movement, and others, not to embrace each others’ ideologies, but just to support a fringe candidate just for the sake of finally dethroning the establishment? I wonder if there are any people out there who would be willing to engage other grass roots, third party, and fringe politic leaders and organizers in conversations to form a coalition, a Third Party Alliance.

    What do you guys think?

    -Patriot Dave

    • SamFox

      It’s to late for a 3rd party this late in the campaign season. Not a bad idea though.

      I like yer other 2 suggestions, those are not to late.


  • Dave

    Spuishi, and Tammy:


    I was going to “like” your comment, but I was trying to do it from my i-phone, and accidently like hit “dislike.” Sorry about that. I had to get on my laptop to post, lol.

    Yeah, I was going to like your comment, and the European guy’s comment, etc., one because they are well written arguments, not mindless jabber, and also because a huge pet peeve of mine is how it seems like many folk act as if NOTHING EVER HAPPENED. I hear Fox talk radio jockys laugh at people who bring up race issues, and snicker at them, as if to say that it’s all in the past, and let’s forget about it, and anything we say, and everything we do, has nothing to do with race. That’s bovine feces! Marry your daughter off to a big chocolate man and I’ll believe you.

    For example, I was listening to Fox radio in the car one day, when a black man was on the radio explaining that “Obama has the Black vote. We all know why the Blacks are going to vote for him.” The talk jock, (I don’t know his name) mocked him and repeated in a sarcastic voice, “Yeah, we all know why, huh. Yeah, we all know why.” What is that? Why do they mock? Why is it so hard for some White people to just accept history for what it was, and the fact that racism is not dead in our country?

    Speaking of marriage, however, I can not say that things are as bad as it used to be everywhere. Where I’m from, there are tons of interracial marriages and children born to these unions. There is a lot more tolerance these days. But, I would be naive to eat the pie-in-the-skie ideals of full fledged Libertarians. Yes, I do believe Dr. Paul believes a little TOO much in the inherent good-will of humanity. Unlike his stance on foriegn policy, history is not on his side concerning this issue.


    I am BIG believer in education. I’m not that big of fan of our current public education, but like you said, it’s not the same every where. I guess some places have steller education programs, and turn out bright grads, etc., while other places underperform. I do tend to trust Dr. Paul’s assessment of the Dept. of Education, and its impact on public education, but I’m no expert on the subject. I do feel that publically funded schools have way too much offerings, things that perhaps could be funded privately by their parents. That said however, I would consider myself more Jeffersonian than libertarian. Jefferson believed that free education and free press would ensure a free society. If I were running for president, I would address every issue that Dr. Ron Paul is addressing, but I wouldn’t touch the Civil Rights Act, and most likely investigate and reform the dept. of education and public schooling.


  • squishi

    Something is fundamentally wrong with anyone who believes that segrgatiin was less of an infrigement on individual rights than the “forced integration” brought by the Civil Rights Act. To say that public attitudes changed and that race relations are better DESPITE the Civil Rights Act is just dumb. So White people were eventually going to say “Ya know, I think I’ll let that nigra sit at my lunch counter today” or “I think it’ll be good for the nigras to be able to dine in tonght instead of picking it up at the kitchen in back” or “That nigra lady looks tired, as a man I should give my front bus seat to her”… Racial strife? I think we had a Civil War over racial strife (oops I mean state’s rights… to have slaves). Racial strife existed before and after integration. Google Rosewood or Black Wall Street. Revisionist history isn’t cute under any political title. But the fact that the Libertarian thinks that founding fathers were the cornerstone for civil liberties when they owned slaves, and that White Only is a property rights not human rights issue… Absurd!

    I’ve heard stories of German POW’s receiving more rights than Black Soldiers during WW2. Able to seek leisure and dine places, American citizens weren’t. This is a tragic circumstance. To look at that and see property rights vs. immorality is out of touch if not worse!

    • SamFox

      squishi, you need to do some looking into how the Founders set up the Constitution to END slavery.

      Don’t react. Do the research, please.

      If the Fed govt wanted to something about segregation, why didn’t they go after southern law enforcement for not enforcing equal protection under the law.

      All forcing the issue did was prolong the problem. If you are forced to do something you will most likely get angry, resentful & cling to your position even more. Force makes people want to go the opposite way, it does not lead them to a more clear understanding or better thought processes. It galvanizes their previous belief & they cling even tighter to it on the inside. The inside is what needs to change.

      White Only at a private business is the stupid owners choice. It’s HIS business! If govt can force one thing, where will their force stop? Look around at how much govt controls our lives, or seeks to. For Heaven’s sake, you can make beer & wine at home but God help ya if you grow a cannabis plant or two!

      Some guy got busted by the Feds for growing his own wheat on his own property & the wheat never left his property. How about all the fuss by local cops around the nation against those dangerous lemonade stands that kids put up. Mercy, people, we have way to much govt now! A lady was popped for having the nerve to grow a vegetable garden in her front yard! she musta been a real threat! OH yeah! And it’s getting worse!


    • classicliberalism

      Where does it say in the US Constitution that busiensses and people in general are supposed to associate with people they don’t wish to? Why is it only whites who were forced to be racially inclusive? Other races aren’t. Blacks have it better off living in a white country than they ever would in Africa. Hell, blacks are treated like hell in China right now! I’m not going to be full of white guilt. If other races don’t have to apologize and pay for their past, neither should we.

  • Eli Johnson

    Not to be awful, but if given the opportunity will White Americans do the right thing in situations such as providing rights to all citizens, etc.? The answer would be no. I have rarely met a White American who does not believe they are superior based on pigment alone. It doesn’t matter if it is a hillbilly from WV, there is something about Whites in America that is inherently insidious. I for one would not want to have to wait around for a bunch of White people to get a conscience and a brain for that matter for my life to change and I’m a White person albeit a transplanted European with much better fashion sense and overall taste. I digress..

    I see if from the perspective of a person who is generally appalled at the anti-intellectual bent of most White Americans. Being left to your own devices rarely works out for anyone but yourselves. Try not to be too revisionist with you history you loveable Yanks.

    I would say though, if I were Black in America I would NEVER trust a White person. Ever. I would smile in your face and play nice, but I would watch my back 24/7. Any minority that does otherwise seems to pay an extremely high price for that trust. As an economist, that cost is too high and the reward non-existent.

    It is your country though. Whites that is. You can do whatever you will, but it won’t be an easy road for you. Encouraging a return to 18th and 19th century America will prove to be more bloody than you could ever imagine. The expectation that you are going to drag America back to a time where only White males had rights is going to be your undoing. But do as you will.

    Enjoy your evening and best of luck to Mr. Paul.


    • That’s a heck of a way to live life, you sound like a soured white looking for a reason that has come and gone. I always been poor white trash and knew it had nothing to do with color but class. You can be snubbed or shunned by any color that “thinks” its better than you through money, celebrity status or birthing place. I been fortunate, I have acquaintances as an adult and treat them as they treat me regardless. But, I wont think of the color of their skin to have any bearing, never have. I find more reversed racism with the mentality you show towards “all” whites. I don’t “owe” anyone anything through their color or persecutions as I don’t resent europe for persecuting my ancestors being christians and tossed to the lions. You do realize, if it was “all” whites, these civil rights laws would never have passed to begin with? It’s not a “white” country.. it’s “our” country. But some on both sides have nothing better to do than promote a race issue to continue hatred. Once you put it in your mind that a man puts his pants on different than you, you allow them to make the class and separations. Maybe I have more “self” respect than normal But, I never seen a better man than me. maybe richer, poorer and in different colors, but never better for some born entitlements owed them. We all live and die no matter what class or color you call yourself. I guess that’s why I support flat tax for “all” and same rights to “all” Americans bar none. Anyone that opposes this, opposes true freedoms and creates the separations.

      • jwpa13

        WRONG Mr. poo white trash..YOU DO owe your fellow man something. That something is respect. It is only class warfare when the underclass fights back… until then it’s just the status quo… The flat tax is a great idea. A national SALES tax SUCKS as the riich can’t POSSIBLY spend the same percentage of their income as the less wealthy that makes that tax regressive. I live in SE PA. 16 miles from TAX FREE Delaware. If I want to buy a high priced TV I go to delaware. If a rich guy wants a high priced yacht or airplane or whatever, he buys it in the Bahamas or someplace, “uses” it there for a while and brings it into the US as a “used item” and will pay less tax on it. If you think for a second a sales tax will work for the betterment of Americans YOU ARE NUTS. A NO DEDUCTIONS flat tax on all income (earned by sweat in a factory or by smarts on the stock market or even the OLD FASHIONED way, by inheritance, that is the way to go.

        • Ianjmacdonald


          @jwpa13 “YOU DO owe your fellow man something. That something is respect.”

          Wrong. Respect is something that is earned. I don’t owe yo a damned thing, you moocher.

        • ianqmacallister


          It depends on the situation. I have learned to trust my gut. If some stranger walks up to me in a parking lot and starts asking me for change or says “yo, what time you got?” then I go into a higher state of readiness since I absolutely refuse to be a victim.

          I am against any law which commands me to associate with people with whom I ordinarily would not.

    • classicliberalism

      I’d have to say, if you hate a certain race of people and don’t trust them, why live in a country full of them? And there are other minorities here that don’t like blacks. Trust me, I’ve met them. It’s not as if blacks are nice to whites either. A majority of the racial violence is black on white. Blacks in Africa are killing whites and displacing them as we speak. The Civil Rights Act violated the rights of whites, because they were forced to live around people they didn’t want to, forced to hire people they didn’t want to, forced to do business with people they didn’t want. Many blacks hate whites and even other minorities. They are very resentful of others who are better off than them.

  • Mimi

    If the civil rights act had not been passed, how many more decades would it have taken for segregation to end on its own? For that matter, if the emancipation proclamation had not been signed, how long would it have been before people took it upon themselves to tire of their slave labor and hire paid employees instead? I think Mr. Paul has a lot of great thoughts, but he places way to much faith in human beings to do the right thing. If it were that simple we wouldn’t need any laws.

    • alim

      Forcing people to get along creates force, not cooperation. Forcing people to accept any kind of change, instead of allowing change to happen over time seems like an easy and fast fix. This ‘fix’ however, exacerbates the problem because the true fix will only come from genuine attitudinal change ( through promoting thoughtful learning about others, acceptance of others, edification of others, charity toward others, love toward others) over time, in the time in which it takes to accomplish that root change. In the case of the Civil Rights Act, which is force, it is no fix at all. Racism through slavery (for example) was an immoral mistake. Mistakes of this magnitude take time to turn around. It appears easy to demand people to change their minds by force, but it does not reduce the time it takes for people to change their minds, in fact (as Dr Paul suggests), it lengthens that process and can cause a backlash, not just against change, but also against force. An example of that is the Civil War. You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make it drink. As people become thirsty for change, change comes. It is not easy or convenient. It often comes with great cost and suffering. Monumental mistakes such as racism, with or without laws that demand change before change comes, exacerbate the problem, as we see played out even today.

    • classicliberalism

      Irrelevant. Why should you be forced to associate with people you don’t want to? Where does it say in the US Constitution people have to be around people they don’t want to? What about blacks who want laws passed to give prefences to only blacks and want to take what whites have simply because they’re white? Other races are ‘racist’ as well, yet I don’t hear people like you demanding Asians, Arabs, Africans, etc be diverse and include others.

    • ianqmacallister

      Harvard had been graduating blacks for nearly a 100 years before passage of the Civil Rights Act. They didn’t need a law.

      >I think Mr. Paul has a lot of great thoughts, but he places way to much faith in human beings to do the right thing.So instead you place great faith in government to “do the right thing”? The government is merely a collection of human beings.

  • Nav

    RACE, RELIGION, CASTE, MONEY, and anything else the divides one person from another is only more fuel to the fire.
    By this I do not mean equality. Liberty is finding beauty and nurture it in what ever form it might be.
    Dear Dr. Paul,
    I share your empathy towards the Americans, the current foreign policies, and the dismal economy. With what I have heard you say so far, these effects are still repairable.
    I want to understand your approach towards the minorities and under-privileged populace, with regards to Education, Healthcare, employment opportunities, etc.
    Liberty in its purest sense would mean equality! This as I understand is too altruistic.

    What are the first few things you do if you become the President of United States to strike a social balance?

    Your supporter

    • classicliberalism

      The only real problem is when race is politicized. it’s not differences between races or religions that cause problems; it’s only when these differences are politicized.

    • ianqmacallister

      >Liberty in its purest sense would mean equality!You can’t possibly believe anything so foolish. Not only is inequality necessary, but a conception of total equality is simply wrong, as the fact that human beings are born unequal in regard to physical and mental capacities is not denied by any reasonable man and all human power would be insufficient to make men really equal. Men are and will always remain unequal.

    • ianqmacallister

      “Liberty in its purest sense would mean equality!”You can’t possibly believe anything so foolish. Not only is inequality necessary, but a conception of total equality is simply wrong, as the fact that human beings are born unequal in regard to physical and mental capacities is not denied by any reasonable man and all human power would be insufficient to make men really equal. Men are and will always remain unequal.

  • PeoplePower

    The law is wrote by definition,however the perspective of that law can be changed.

    For example everyone has a right to own their own “home”, & all the companies refer to “houses” technically a house it not a home so you cannot own it.
    Just one way these crooks fk with the law.

    Ignore all the bs about Ron Paul, the people at the top are very scared of him, I wonder why lol.

    Go Ron Paul 🙂