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.

Likes(2)Dislikes(0)

568 Comments:

  1. He is NOT isolationist. He is a NON-INTERVENTIONIST. And about the 911 attacks, it's about BLOWBACK, and like it or not, it's the reality. That's why a lot of countries hate us, because we occupy other countries and police the world. So now, almost entire world hate us precisely because of our "friendly" foreign policy and you don't like him because of his foreign policy?

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2

  2. http://waterworldeden4.wordpress.com/2012/01/21/respectful-remedy-of-abhorrent-actions/

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

  3. Isn’t individual liberty also about not discriminating based on Race, Creed, Color, or Sex? So therefore it would be unconstitutional to deny service based on those parameters alone, right? So the way I see it, it the Civil Rights Act is more redundant on rights that every human is endowed with (not just Americans if it is truly “God Given”, right?). I can see property rights being eaten away by legislation that masks what should already be claimed and realized. As freedom lovers we can not deny those that seek liberty as well, that would be counterproductive. Anyway, the whole argument becomes a muddled mess. Although I think with “race” being in the forefront more than in recent years, we should take advantage and start to talk about the wounds and triumphs we have had with American race relations. First and foremost, we must remember we are Americans first, everything else flows from that. Peace.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

    • Wrong. Individual liberty means you cannot be forced to work with or associate with anyone based on a government decree. You get to make those decisions for yourself.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1

  4. this whole argument is ridiculous. If the Congressional vote was 434-1, then it doesn't seem like it deserves this big of an argument. In a democractic society, the majority vote rules. Clearly, the majority vote was for the civil rights act.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3

    • Ever heard the phrase "Tyranny of the majority"? If 51% of the people vote to kill the remaining 49%, would that be OK with you because it's what the majority wants?

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1

  5. can u please tell us what documentation you are talking about?

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2

  6. @David25 I never said whites were a minority. quote me correctly, thanks.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

  7. President Ron Paul?

    http://johnston-sequoia.blogspot.com/2012/01/presi...

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2

  8. Shawn,

    He doesn't blame America, because he believes the way I do, YOU and I are America. He blames the establishment, crony, military-industrialist government and their 100 years of very bad foreign policy, for 9/11. People err when they equate the entrenched government with the American Republic. If you worked in a company that had exceptional and great employees, but very bad management and terrible policies that bankrupt the company, would you say it's the employees' fault for bad business, or management's? Is it right that employees blame management for losing their jobs, when they could have kept their jobs if management had better policies? So, the Republican and Mainstream Media crams the word "isolationist" down our throats, when Ron Paul constantly says that he is open to trade, and diplomacy, and that waging endless, undeclared wars, which are against the Law, namely, the U.S. Constitution, and all such aggression isolates us from the world, so who are the real isolationist? Our Founding Fathers advocated for "Trade with all, Entangling Alliances with none." So, you CAN support a man who advocates for the Founding Documents of this great country, and the Constitutional Republic and ideals of the Founders.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2

    • @Patriot Dave you are right on! Thanks.

      To those uncertain of Ron Paul's foreign policy--

      Here is why we had 9-11--

      Did blowback cause 9-11

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sjqGBBFiowE

      NY Times: http://tinyurl.com/6o3rlcb

      Ron's 'mind our own business' 'do to others what we would have them do to US' nonintervention FP would have prevented 9-11. We would not have been POing the ME for decades before the attack.

      http://debrainwashing.wordpress.com/2011/12/21/what-would-ron-paul-have-done-with-911/#comment-57

      Is Ron isolationist? No.

      http://paulitifact.com/

      "Wiped off the map" rumor of the century- http://www.mohammadmossadegh.com/news/rumor-of-the-century

      Ron's FP--

      Same as Founders

      http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul413.html

      Ron's FP;

      Wise,

      http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig8/fisk5.html

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a4zKzXFcLN4

      Same as Founders

      http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul413.html

      The Original US FP

      http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/fff-video.html

      http://www.examiner.com/conspiracy-in-denver/support-the-troops-by-supporting-ron-paul

      Back up for Ron Paul FP--

      Former CIA bin Laden expert, M Scheuer backs up Ron:

      http://ronpaulflix.com/2011/09/michael-scheuer-former-bin-laden-cia-expert-backs-up-ron-paul-on-911-sep-13-2011/

      This also backs up Ron--1 of 4 parts-

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sSt4L43RbeA

      M Scheuer endorses Ron-

      http://lewrockwell.com/scheuer/scheuer12.1.html

      Jews who like Ron Paul--

      Ron is not against Israel-

      http://zionistsforronpaul.blogspot.com/

      http://www.americansforisrael.com/

      http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2827219/posts

      Not attacking any one, just trying to get the truth our to combat fringe media propaganda spin & duplicity regarding Ron's foreign policy.

      SamFox

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2

  9. @Deb Harris Lets stick to facts please. Ron Paul needs support from the non-conspiracy crowd too.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2

  10. do u have any idea how offensive that is to people who died in 9/11? The buildings didn't implode, moron. They collapsed.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2

  11. He argues that the free market would have eventually corrected these social injustices including child labor etc. Progressives argue that without government intervention child labor would continue to exist. This is not true because research shows that by the time child labor laws were enacted child labor was already on a steep decline because the standard of living for Americans had been increasing and Americans could afford to send their kids to school thanks to the market. Eventually If left alone child labor would have eliminated it self. Same for segregation eventually the American whites would have began to hire blacks because of demand for labor creating competition and eventually other business's would have to hire blacks in order to keep up. When government forces things on the people it creates rebellion. By allowing the people's public opinion to change on their own and to figure out that sending kids to work or  discriminating someone because of the color of their skin is idiotic, it creates a more pure society. The civil war was fought because of pressure from northerners who believed it was unfair that the south didn't have to pay their workers. The norths economy was  mainly manufacturing while the south was agriculture so therefor they didn't have a need for slaves. All of this was masked by the morality of slavery.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3

    • @Felipe21 This is ridiculous. So whites would "hire blacks" but still not let them live, eat, play, where they wanted to. People need laws to legislate their lack of morality, such as laws against murder, rape, assault, segregation and discrimination. It's nothing new. I don't know where Paul and supporters get any backing of their claim that left to their own, humans act with kindness! Especially when it's market driven! There is nothing in the history of the world that supports that kind of thinking.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2

      • @inaladeeda @Felipe21 Where do you get backing for your claim otherwise? I don't need laws to regulate my morality, do you?

        Maybe a good example could be seen in sports. It happened naturally without laws mandating it.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4

        • @orsigno @inaladeeda There were many whites that marched in the civil right marches. Its not like every white at the time was racist. The people who were racist at the time continued to be racist after the civil right laws were put in place. People were already becoming tolerant and it wasn't because of these laws. What these laws do is give the opposition reason to organize and isolate themselves such as the kkk. You can't find support for this kind of thinking because there has never been a time where information was so readily available to people. In the past people were oppressed because they didn't know any better this would not happen today also because there are people who would not let it happen such as non profit organizations that help people get on their feet. No one system can work in every nation. This type of system would not work in a third world country where the population is not educated. I also believe in socialism but eventually it could only progress a nation so far and eventually a free market system would be required. 

          What attracts me most to Ron Paul are his economic policies. He predicted the Credit crisis along with other economists like Peter Schiff. He argues that the economy has been declining even though some numbers don't show it, ever since the Federal reserve was created no matter what party was in control of Washington. Politicians ever since have been covering up these holes until the next election season. They argued that inflation was good at some degree because it meant the economy was growing. This is not true and you can tell this by looking at how today people can not afford a college education while in the past people could work and be able to pay for college. 

          Both both political parties are big spenders and like war. I'm 16 and I like to engage in these debates to learn more and become a better citizen I am very open minded and am interested in what other people have to say.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3

        • Inaladeeda's comments perfectly exemplify a Machiavellian worldview that regards humans as inherently wicked, and that they must be controlled by their moral superiors (the state).

          >So whites would "hire blacks" but still not let them live, eat, play, where they wanted to.

          In 1947, when the Brooklyn Dodgers hired Jackie Robinson, why did racial discrimination by major league teams begin to drop like a hot potato? It wasn't feelings of guilt by white owners, affirmative action or anti-discrimination laws. It was greed. Refusing to hire talented people due to one's racial preference hurts the bottom line and places your firm at a competitive disadvantage relative to other firms which do not hire on the basis of race.

          Just because I hire you does not mean that I want to live next door to you, or socialize with you. Why is that a problem for you? People like you consider people like me to be evil old racists, so why on earth would you want to live next to me, socialize with me, or sit down for supper with me? Why does your happiness depend on whether I allow you into my club? And why must the law force us to be together when we clearly would rather be apart?

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3

        • @ianqmacallister Baseball is an excellent example of why the "free market" does NOT work for sorting out social issues like this.

          Professional baseball got started in the mid-to late 1800s and didn't ban blacks until AFTER a few had already played alongside whites! It took another 50+ years for Jackie Robinson to come along. So if that is your "hot potato", I'd hate to see what a cold one looks like. (Or rather, we'll all be long dead waiting to see it.)

          As for the rest of your post, well, it's amusing to see that some segregationists are still around. But seriously, that particular policy's not going to make a comeback. Nor will discrimination against women or any minorities for that matter. Never fear though, there are probably still a few groups left you can discriminate against (since that kinda thing seems to make you happy). You might have to look hard though now that all the good ones are taken. Find one and enjoy. Go nuts!

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1

        • @Felipe21 , glad to have you aboard. You give a ray of hope for the younger generation. You are going to inherit the big govt debt & police state.

          My son is 26 & he is not half as savvy on politics as you.

          Hang in there young blood! Thanks for a good researched post!

          SamFox

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

        • @Felipe21@orsigno@inaladeeda

          actually, the federal reserves were created during the great depression, so actually, the economy has improved quite a bit since.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

        • @orsigno@inaladeedathe existence of murder, rape, RACISM, and all other crimes prove that, in fact, there is a reason for laws regulating morality.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1

        • @orsigno@inaladeeda

          being discriminatory in hiring practices DOES hurt people. It hurts people who need jobs but cannot get them because of the color of their skin.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0

        • @orsigno@inaladeeda@Felipe21 you don't need laws to regulate your morality but racists, sexists, and homophobes do. In the 1960s the racists had a more viscous voice and power than the oppressed, so if ever there was a time for the federal government to stand up for its citizens and as you say "regulate morality", it was then.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        • mmmdee--Like I said way back up in here somewhere :-) , once the Feds get a foot in the door...

          http://www.naturalnews.com/030799_food_freedom_Wickard_vs_Filburn.html

          Results of Fed law & ' war on [some] drugs' leads to--

          http://stopthedrugwar.org/speakeasy/2010/aug/16/grandmothers_death_botched_drug

          http://www.druglibrary.org/think/~jnr/botched.htm

          The above is only a few of the victims of the fed laws regarding drugs.

          Feds got the RICO Act, another foot in the door. It was supposed to only be for organized crime, now it's every one.

          http://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?a=215

          Look at the way the income tax laws have expanded. What a 'Fed hand in our pocket' has led to from what is was supposed to be.When first introduced it was supposed to be temporary & voluntary. What do we have now?

          So much for letting govt gain a nose under the tent...the road to hell the US is now on is said to be paved with good intentions...are those intentions really all that good?

          SamFox

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        • @Jacob9578 . I didn't know the 'Federal' Reserve was foisted on the US during the great depression. I coulda swore it came in 1913. Silly me. Letting facts get in the way of my imagination. :-)

          http://www.scionofzion.com/federalreserve.htm

          http://news.goldseek.com/GoldSeek/1095269452.php

          I take it you go to a government school, so it's no wonder you have been misguided on this subject. Not making fun of you. I had to learn this on my own also. I went to govt schools as well.

          I was playin a bit at 1st, but not meaning to be nasty, hurtful or any thing.

          Thanks.

          SamFox

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        • @mmmdee, We do need some laws. But the feds use every excuse they can to add new ones & gain more control over our lives.

          The CRA was not needed. There was already a Constitutional provision, the 14th amendment.

          Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

          That's why I mentioned that the Feds could have enforced equal protection under the law in an earlier post floating some where in this part of cyber space.

          Thanks.

          SamFox

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

        • @SamFox The 14th amendment applies to the state not business and the civil rights bill was as a result of harmful business activities under the jim crowe law that was supported by the supreme court plessy v ferguson ruling.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        • mmmdee. , true, "The 14th amendment applies to the state...". It forbids the state from discriminating with laws favorable to one group over another.

          To requote part of the 14 amendment:

          "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;..." The state could not pass a law that said whites could have privileges that blacks can't.

          BUT a private business could decide who they wanted to serve.

          Plus, & let me clarify my original point, The FEDS could legally enforce ON the states what the 14th Amendment is some times called, Equal Protection Under The Law. The law in this case = the Constitution.

          Thus the CRA was not really needed, but did allow the fed govt another foot in another door.

          Let me be clear. I do NOT support racism. I think it's a sick mental state that needs some kind of treatment. It's IMO some kind of mental disease based on a very foolish assumption: one race is superior based on skin color.

          How stupid is that? VERRRRY!!!

          Also let me be clear: I am sick of the Fed govt expanding it self into every area of our lives. I gave a few examples of that in another reply I made to one of your other comments.

          I hope you understand where I am coming from. So called good intentions of the fed govt seldom lead to good policies. If the policy takes away my freedom or yours I don't like it.

          That being said, a private business is another subject. Related to be sure, but not to be dictated to by fed laws. Private business owners are also "...Citizens of the United States". A business owner is IN a state. They are not THE state.

          SamFox

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

      • @inaladeeda , actually, the free market has more power to 'change minds'., so to speak than you realize.

        Here is why we did not need another Fed law.

        14th Amendment

        Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

        The Feds already had a law. They did not need a new one.

        SamFox

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      • The bad behavior of racism is corrected in truly free markets. A merchant who hangs a "whites only" sign in his window doesn't hurt anyone but himself because eventually one of his competitors will hang a "all are welcome" sign in his window and all the non-whites will flock to his business to spend their money so the racist merchant will be forced to do the same or go out of business. The same with hiring. If two businesses in the same field are looking to expand their work forces and one hires only whites and the other hires any suitable applicant who applies regardless of race, then the one who hires without regard to race will grow his business faster and force the other out. Racism only continued in the south because the laws of the time allowed it to exist. The Jim Crow laws are a perfect example of bad behavior being allowed to thrive because of government intervention in free markets.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    • @Felipe21 Sorry, but inaladeeda has it right. If not, there would have been little need for much of the legislation--in the form of Constitutional amendments, etc--since the emancipation of the slaves. After, all they were freed right?? The "free market" had 100 years since then to sort itself out! The CR legislation--not just for blacks, but women, and other minorities--would not have been needed if there were some great , unseen, equalizing force at hand that obviated it. Yet, RP supporters *still* say that the CR legislation was too soon? You've got to be kidding! These ideas are nice in theory, (in a society where there are no prejudices and minority rights can be implicitly respected by all) but in practice if the majority has little direct, immediate incentive to respect them they just don't work. As the saying goes: "Hope is not a strategy!"

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

      • Except that the south had the Jim Crow laws for all those years that allowed discrimination based on race. All that needed to happen was for the Supreme Court to strike down the Jim Crow laws as unconstitutional and that would have solved it.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

  12. He argues that the free market would have eventually corrected these social injustices including child labor etc. Progressives argue that without government intervention child labor would continue to exist. This is not true because research shows that by the time child labor laws were enacted child labor was already on a steep decline because the standard of living for Americans had been increasing and Americans could afford to send their kids to school thanks to the market. Eventually If left alone child labor would have eliminated it self. Same for segregation eventually the American whites would have began to hire blacks because of demand for labor creating competition and eventually other business's would have to hire blacks in order to keep up. When government forces things on the people it creates rebellion. By allowing the people's public opinion to change on their own and to figure out that sending kids to work or  discriminating someone because of the color of their skin is idiotic, it creates a more pure society. The civil He argues that the free market would have eventually corrected these social injustices including child labor etc. Progressives argue that without government intervention child labor would continue to exist. This is not true because research shows that by the time child labor laws were enacted child labor was already on a steep decline because the standard of living for Americans had been increasing and Americans could afford to send their kids to school thanks to the market. Eventually If left alone child labor would have eliminated it self. Same for segregation eventually the American whites would have began to hire blacks because of demand for labor creating competition and eventually other business's would have to hire blacks in order to keep up. When government forces things on the people it creates opposition and riots by allowing people to figure out that they have no other choice it creates a more pure and humble society. The civil war was MAINLY fought over economic reasons and not necessarily to give blacks equal rights. Ask yourselves why is America the only country to have fought a war over slavery? The civil war was fought because of pressure from northerners who believed it was unfair that the south didn't have to pay their workers. The norths economy was  mainly manufacturing while the south was agriculture so therefor they didn't have need for slaves. All of this was masked by the morality of slavery.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  13. Mau, glad to help. Good legitimate Q.

    It's not the text that contains what you inquire about. It's the bill itself. It's a false flag attack on personal liberty, in this case the liberty & rights of private business owners. Govt used the CRA to get it's big foot in the door.

    If the govt cared about discrimination , they would end the discriminatory war on some drugs. Blacks get locked up a lot more than other groups. NYC has a 'stop & frisk' policy that targets blacks & Hispanics many times more than other ethnic groups.

    Hope that helps. Thanks.

    SamFox

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    • @SamFox You neglect the rights of people of color to live a life free of discrimination, harassment, and the freedom to do what they want. Private business owners are doing just fine, the CRA has not hurt them, compared to what blacks and other people of color suffered in this country before it.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      • @inaladeeda No I don't. I don't neglect any rights for any one.That's why I said " If the govt cared about discrimination , they would end the discriminatory war on some drugs. Blacks get locked up a lot more than other groups. NYC has a 'stop & frisk' policy that targets blacks & Hispanics many times more than other ethnic groups.

        I just understand that if the govt gets it's foot in the door they go all freaky in their efforts to be the controlling factor in ALL our lives as they spread like cancer from one issue to the next.

        SamFox

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      • @SamFox@inaladeeda I like both of your comments, because you both make valid points. Personally, I agree with and endorse everything Ron Paul is campaigning on right now, but because of the history of advantaged White America, Slavery, Discrimination, Segregation, Sexism, etc., and because the Civil Rights Act was brought about by a Populist movement, I don't agree with anything suggesting a repeal of the Civil Rights Act. I've said it before and I'll say it again, libertarian IDEALS, are IDEAL in a country with either all the same ethnicity, or in a country where bigotry, racism, advantages, etc., don't exist, and America is not that country.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      • @SamFox@inaladeeda

        SamFox, your argument does not make sense. The discrimination by police should absolutely be stopped, but legalizing drugs so they cant arrest anyone will not stop the problem.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      • @Jacob9578 ,Good legitimate Q in a reasoned reply.

        I did not say it would completely solve police discrimination. Or totally prevent discrimination & abuse by any other groups who are deluded by racist views or policy. But ending the drug war would stop much of the abuse by cops & others, especially in law enforcement.

        Copy & paste the following to a search--

        Marijuana laws once used by states to discriminate

        History of cannabis and industrial hemp prohibition

        War on drugs an attack on the Bill Of Rights

        War on drugs led to militarization of police agencies

        Hemp For Victory, YouTube video

        War on drugs is lost

        How much is the drug war costing in terms of money

        How many innocents have been killed because of the war on drugs

        Why does Law Enforcement Against Prohibition call for ending drug war, leap.cc

        How many die each year from Rx drug use

        How many die each year from illegal drug use

        I only put up a few topics, but there should be enough to give you an idea of where I am coming from & why Ron Paul says the war on [some] drugs should end.

        I do not advocate using drugs. I advocate that people own their bodies. not govt, & that people should be free to make their own choices. If they commit a real crime when using, they are then subject to prosecution.

        All prohibited drugs were once legal. There was no huge problem with addiction or crime then.Explore this one at leap.cc

        I say RE-legalize; take the profits from the cartels, end a lot of graft & bribes & save MANY lives. Let states, NOT feds, regulate distribution through dispensaries in conjunction with Consequences Of Use education based on truth, not Reefer Madness style propaganda.

        Drug use & related problems should be a medical issue, not a criminal one. Unless a real crime is committed when using of course. .

        Thank you.

        SamFox

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        • SanFox, I completely agree with you that we should re-legalize drugs. You and I both know that for most of this nation's history we got along just fine without a DEA and a perpetual 'war on (some) drugs." However, speaking as a rightest, I condemn anti-drug laws on the grounds that they are wrong, not racist.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      • @Patriot Dave you are a smart man.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    • @SamFox stop and frisk and the war on drugs were not problems for the black community in the 1960s. Problem was discrimination and poverty as a result of this discrimination and the civil rights bill served as a way to begin the process of eliminating this problem. it was wideley accepted by the black communit and civil rights proponents and wideley discredited by racists.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      • @mmmdee actually they were, though not nearly so much then as now.

        What I was saying you didn't seem to grasp. No offence, not attacking.

        What I was illustrating is the point I made that if govt it gets a foot in the door in an arena they can't be trusted to keep from taking more power from We The People. That once the feds get a toe hold they will try to own the whole mountain, so to speak.

        I was illustrating govt over reacah that defies the Constitution.

        SamFox

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  14. Shawn, a correction. Ron Paul does believe that it's OK to amend the Constitution. After all, amending is part of the Constitution & Founder's intent to deal with future issues.

    Your business is supposed to be YOUR BUSINESS! You own it. No one else's.

    You call Ron's FP 'isolationist'. I challenge you to show me where Ron calls for the USA to close off from the rest of the world. If Ron is 'isolationist' so then were Washington & Jefferson. Ron has the same FP as they do. You should know that. You should be ashamed for being so easily tricked. Please do more research.

    Not attacking, correcting.

    "Isolationist" is a fringe media propaganda construct, NOT what Ron advocates.

    Ron's FP; Wise,

    http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig8/fisk5.html

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a4zKzXFcLN4

    The original US FP-

    http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/fff-video.html

    Same as Founders

    http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul413.html

    Is Ron isolationist? No.

    http://paulitifact.com/

    "Wiped off the map" rumor of the century-

    http://www.mohammadmossadegh.com/news/rumor-of-the-century/

    Links I posted regarding Ron & Israel, above, agree with the above link.

    Thank you for being open minded enough to check this our.

    SamFox

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    • @SamFox

      Jefferson and Washington were isolationists. They openly declared themselves to be isolationists. And the US isolation strategies in both World Wars led to far more people being killed

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      • @Jacob9578 Would you please back that up. Not attacking or mocking, but I never heard that before.

        !st show us where ANY US Founders were isolationist.

        2nd show us what the US FP was before WWII.

        Thank you.

        SamFox

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      • @SamFox

        The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is inextending our commercial relations to have as little politicalconnection as possible... Why, by interweaving our destiny with that ofany part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils ofEuropean ambition, rivalships, interest, humor, or caprice?... It is ourtrue policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion ofthe foreign world." - george washington

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      • Jacob9578. thanks Jake. You make my case.

        What you are talking about in your quote is not isolation. It's a call for the USA to mind our own business. You can see from the following that I am correct.

        Here is more of what Washington & Jefferson & J Q Adams said--

        Tom J: " Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations; entangling alliances with none. – Thomas Jefferson"

        JQ Adams: [Goes along with Jefferson's quote.]

        I have ever deemed it fundamental for the United States never to take active part in the quarrels of Europe. [We could insert "The Middle East" here & do the quote no injustice.] Their political interests are entirely distinct from ours. Their mutual jealousies, their balance of power, their complicated alliances, their forms and principles of government, are all foreign to us. They are nations of eternal war. – Thomas Jefferson (1823)

        America does not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She well knows that by enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standards of freedom. – John Quincy Adams (1821)

        [Cont. next post. I hope. :-) ]

        SamFox

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      • From G Washington Farewell Address- [Cont. from above post.]

        "Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government. But that jealousy to be useful must be impartial; else it becomes the instrument of the very influence to be avoided, instead of a defense against it. Excessive partiality for one foreign nation and excessive dislike of another cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real patriots who may resist the intrigues of the favorite are liable to become suspected and odious, while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people, to surrender their interests.

        The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations [Like the ME] is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop. Europe [ME could go here as well.] has a set of primary interests which to us have none; or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves by artificial ties in the ordinary vicissitudes of her [As in the ME.] politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities.

        Why forego the advantages of so peculiar a situation? Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground?[Again, the ME.] Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, [The ME] entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European [The ME] ambition, rivalship, interest, humor or caprice?

        It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world [ME fits here.]; Wow! Ron Paul is so in line with what the Founders advocated!! Is not that a grand ideal?

        YES!! IT IS!!

        SamFox

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  15. I figure someone needed to post this

    Amendment I

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

    Amendment II

    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

    Amendment III

    No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

    Amendment IV

    The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

    Amendment V

    No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

    Amendment VI

    In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

    Amendment VII

    In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

    Amendment VIII

    Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

    Amendment IX

    The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

    Amendment X

    The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  16. @Shawn- If a business is owned by a private citizen, which most are in our capitalistic society, then it is therefore private property. You should take a Constitutional Law class or two and learn how to read legal documents and contracts. Perhaps an MBA is in order? About Dr.Paul's foreign policy... I am an Infantry Veteran by the way... The USA would not be "turning their back" on anyone. Israel and her allies are quite capable of defending themselves. Look at how fast they crush the opposition in a history book. We need to bring all of our boys and girls home. Close up shop.(Lock down the boarders) Decriminalize drugs.(not Legalize everything) Start growing cannabis for production of paper, clothing, smoking, and making bio-diesel. This would make the 10% unemployment rate in America drop quite a bit. Also, we need to re-industrialize the United States. I would do this by discontinuing outsourcing. Tap the Alaskan pipeline, drill for oil off the east coast, and drill for oil in North and South Dakota. Re-open old and make new oil refineries across the USA. All of these things would drastically increase productivity in the USA, decrease the unemployment rate, and basically liberate the people of our country again.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  17. I didn't write that NO non-Asian minorities are qualified for jobs requiring strong mental aptitude, but you will not find them in proportion to their population at large due the average black-white IQ differential. The average African-American IQ is 85 while the average European-American IQ is about 102. If the top professional and managerial jobs in this country require an IQ of at least 115 or thereabouts, then only about 2.5 percent of blacks appear able to compete for those jobs. The comparable figure for whites would be about 16 percent. Total black population with IQs over 115: 800,000. Comparable figure for whites: about 30 million.

    There's simply no getting around this. See "Black-White IQ Differences" by Daniel Seligman. http://library.flawlesslogic.com/iq.htm

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

  18. Paul foreign policy is Non-interventionist not Isolationist. Isolationist want to close off all trade with all countries and be self-reliant. Paul wants to open up free trade with nearly every country, all the other candidates have more isolationist policies than this. It is interventionist policies that let to 9/11. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8NhRPo0WAo

    I agree public buildings should not be allowed to discriminate, privately they should be able to do what they want. I think he is referring to the EEOC part, but I might be wrong. My view is no amount of government can change someone's morals, but the government is supposed to represent everyone so it cannot discriminate.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    • @David25 , your link was taken down. Here are some others--

      http://slander.revolutioni.st/isolationist.html

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B4a__tcfFug

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JqdH6y4-8xU&feature=results_video&playnext=1&list=PLDF2E16B6A8273AD1

      ThanksDavid for a good post.

      SamFox

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      • Thank you for replacing it with some more, it was educational. Very good video with Jack Hunter, great job with the extensive research keep up the good work.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  19. Ok excuse me, whites are the biggest single ethnic group in Texas, combined the other ethnic groups outnumber non-hispanic whites. So the correct statement would be there are more minorities than whites, sorry.

    http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/48000.html

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    • Depends on how one defines "white." According to the US Census, white persons in Teas not Hispanic constitute 45.3% of the population. That's a minority. Texas no longer has a majority. Whites are a minority in Texas just as we are a small minority worldwide.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    • @ianqmacallister And this explains White Anxiety and support for Ron Paul. Fear of losing power and control.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

    • @inaladeeda Wow, who do you work for?

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

    • Actually Ron Paul has a decidedly pro-immigration stance, and does not appear to have a racially conscious bone in his body. I disagree with his stance on immigration, and cringed when I heard him praise Martin Luther King as his "hero." Likewise when he described the criminal justice system as biased against blacks. That's just foolishness.

      I'll still vote for Ron Paul for his positions on the Constitutional, true civil rights, and sound economics. All other candidates are bought and paid for by Wall Street, the military-industrial-intelligence complex, and the Zionist Lobby.

      Regarding the decline of white majorities, yes, I do not like it. So what?

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    • @ianqmacallister , the criminal justice system IS biased against black people.

      http://www.fff.org/comment/com0303e.asp

      http://www.drugwarfacts.org/cms/node/64

      I usually post a lot of links, but 2 are enough for now.

      Thank you for a reasonable post. You make some very good points.

      SamFox

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      • From "Racism and the Drug War" by Jacob C. Hornberger.

        First, these days the word "racism" means so many different things that it doesn't mean anything anymore. There's racial prejudice, racial animosity, ethnic pride as a white person, preference for one's own kind as a white person, the study of racial differences, criticizing a black president as a white person, etc. All these these things get shoehorned into the category "racism." I recommend the book "Racism, Schmacism" by radio talkshow host James Edwards.

        Like the term "assault weapon" and "gateway drug," the word "racism" simply has no fixed meaning.

        "In 1986, before the enactment of federal mandatory minimum sentencing for crack-cocaine offenses, the average federal drug sentence for African-Americans was 11 percent higher than for whites. Four years later, the average federal drug sentence for African-Americans was 49 percent higher."

        This statistic might very well be true, but is it evidence of "racism" in the criminal justice system? Listen, I am old enough that I actually remember when the fedgov enhanced penalties for crack cocaine. Do you know who was pushing for those laws? The Black Congressional Caucus. Are they racist?

        Check out the arrest and conviction statistics generated in those cities where the local criminal justice machinery - which which carries almost all the burden of the w"war on drugs" - is run BY BLACKS. Do you still see the same patterns cited by Hornberger? Of course you do. What does that tell you? Do you really think that black cops, black prosecutors and black judges are are targeting black offender BECAUSE THEY ARE MOTIVATED BY ANTI-BLACK BIAS?

        Perhaps we should look around for other reasons why blacks are more likely to be ensnared by the drug war. The fact is that any given black defendant is more likely to have a prior criminal history than any given white defendant. The fact that these laws ensnare blacks is because blacks are more likely to violate them by dealing drugs or engaging in violence around commerce in drugs, not necessarily because all cops are racists.

        If you think that the criminal justice system is racially-biased against black, then you should read The Color of Crime by the New Century Foundation. Colorofcrime.com.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  20. One remarkable thing is that a lot of people here are saying the government should do what is in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and say it should not do some of the things that are not in that law but still vociferously stand opposed to the law. One key thing not in the law is that there is *no* provision which would restrict private employers from discriminating. It primarily addressed public accommodations and voting rights. Paul has an issue with this? Does he miss the good old days where blacks could stay in certain hotels only if they happened to be sports stars traveling with their mostly white teammates but then still had to eat in the kitchen instead of the dining room?

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

    • @Reality Check Paul has no problem with voting rights for all. I know of no words he has uttered that could lead to the conclusion that he is against any citizen voting rights.

      If by 'public accommodations' you mean govt offices & such, he says there should be no discrimination by govt in State of Fed buildings.

      Private businesses are a different matter. Those are owned by private citizens & should remain under their control.

      SamFox

      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 *


three + 1 =

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=""> <s> <strike> <strong>