Civil Rights Act




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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

Likes(1)Dislikes(0)

568 Comments:

  1. Hey merely wanted to offer a speedy heads upward. The words within your post are most often running off the screen inside Firefox. I'm unclear if it is a format problem or something about internet browser compatibility but I thought i'd post to inform you. The styling look wonderful though! Hope you obtain the issue fixed rapidly. Many thank you

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

  2. Every tom knows that practised development is essential to succeeding in a calling, but have you endlessly stopped to deem round PERSONAL development? Employers today are on the seeking after workers with allowable communication, influence, and problem-solving skills. This article provides a company of tips seeking intimate development and purposefulness relieve you in developing yourself to the a- of your ability.

    If you are in a macabre attitude, perchance gloaming angry, obtain some prematurely to exercise. One-liner of the most productive ways to battle with exasperate is past getting a unmanageable bag and beating on it when you are stressed out. It order release endorphins that will sign you judge much more safely a improved nearby life.

    If you are battling hollow, snack a intake that includes assorted types of green fruits and vegetables, soy beans, full grains, nuts, seeds, brown rice and legumes. This could help wax the equal of serotonin in your remains and relieve some of the symptoms that be associated with indentation in a regular way.

    In ukase to be well-to-do with your outing of actual development, you need to bear a effect instituting from which to build upon. Your achievement is determined past your own self mould and self-reliance levels. These are two mild things you can shove, which will in drive assist you in successfully identifying all the things you would like to mend upon in your life.

    There are numberless steps and virtues on the modus operandi to accurate success. The model people is reproduction, and this means to share your success. True happy result isn't celebrity at all unless you stake it, and so therefore, you should unexceptionally slice your outcome with the people around you in statute to fully succeed.

    Improving wealth can be one tread in personal development. This resolve improve the dignity of duration that you are living. Everybody under the sun would fondness to be glad and take less accentuate, and while folding money can not reveal your problems, it can ease any pecuniary winnow that you power be experiencing.

    Find ways to wheel off work your percipience when you are going to bed. When you ballad there in the pessimistic toute seule with your thoughts, you usually end up beating yourself up concluded things or stressing hither other things. You then reason up losing sleep and start the late-model prime bromidic and fagged instead of with renewed energy.

    Your derogatory evolvement not under any condition stops fand that's why it's forever noteworthy to board learning. Shoot up these tips to bolster your efforts to be a better mortal physically and a more intelligent you. Be restful on yourself and if you bump into uncover yourself going backwards, don't despair. Being the a-one you that you can be purposefulness operate some days, but you'll like the personally you become.

    Cheap Beats by Dre Solo

    Replica Oakley Unfaithful Sunglasses

    Tiffany And Co Earrings Atlas Open Cube Silver

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2

  3. i went to the states in 2002 with my family. we were harassed at the airport off your gestapo style security whether black or white... i hate your country... sooner you dim wits realise what freedom and choice is all about you might wake up and say oh fuck did we really do that.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0

    • Don't feel TOO special, we are ALL harrassed at Airports now.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0

    • 2002 was just after the U.S was attacked and thousands of people were killed. Maybe instead of slamming our security you should have said "They have heightened security because some terrorist group just attacked them."
      We are the dim wits, but YOU wanted to come here!

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

  4. That is absolutely interesting, You are generally an exceedingly skilled blogger. I've joined up with your rss feed and look forward to in the hunt for extra of the great post. Also, I possess shared your site in my social networks!

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2

  5. Good evening! I simply would want to give a massive thumbs up for your great information you might have here on this post. I are going to be coming again in your blog for extra shortly.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3

  6. I am a minority, and this is what I do not understand. The 1964 Civil Rights Act made it easier for minorities to get jobs at places where racism prevented them from previously getting employment. But, why would a minority want to work for a company who employed racist individuals in the first place? What makes this country great is that you have people of different backgrounds, skill sets, and upbringings working together. If a company wants to discriminate, let them, and watch them fail and make room for another company that welcomes all individuals without regard to race, sex, or creed. Why did we need an act to illustrate the rights of minorities? What we really needed was for the Federal Government to enforce the rights that were already in the Constitution, such as the right of EVERY citizen to pursue life, liberty, and happiness. I for one would never want to work for a company who only wanted me to make the government happy because I'm a minority, and that would make for a very uncomfortable environment. If a company wants to be racist, let it happen. In this day in age, with the speed of social media, that company would be bankrupt before they could say "Civil Rights."

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Highly rated. What do you think? Thumb up 56 Thumb down 7

  7. fags

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 4 Thumb down 25

  8. Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Poorly rated. What do you think? Thumb up 17 Thumb down 52

    • I'M GOING TO POINT OUT THAT HE SAID HE AGREES WITH OUR RACIAL RELATIONSHIPS PROGRESSING...
      WHAT HE SAID WAS HE THOUGHT THAT THE ACT ITSELF WAS WRONG...
      THAT SHOULD SHUT UP YOU WAR MONGERS...

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 4

  9. I have never seen a politician that I am in so much agreement with (not even Reagan!). I am glad about the speech RP gave because it is TRUE. Look around. What has Obummer done to 'improve race relations'? Hang out with communists that 'just love to harass white people'? Thank God for Ron Paul!

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Highly rated. What do you think? Thumb up 29 Thumb down 14

  10. Yea, because hundreds of years in this country as slaves, being beaten by police for trying to sit in the same restaurant as whites, protesting the violation of human rights, Martin Luther King's work... Yea, none of that is earning equal rights. Equal rights are NOT given... They are an inalienable truth, mentioned by the founders of our country. You, my fine sir, are a racist. And if equal rights must be earned, how did you get yours? By being born white? Oh yes, big struggle for you.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 42 Thumb down 36

    • Slavery can never be defended. Ever, however you do realize that we have a black president. Meaning a majority of our population voted for him. Meaning a majority of our population is not racist.

      Ron Paul is simply stating that you can not force someone to be something they are not. If someone is a racist, that is what they are and they will live in a isolated existence with other racist until they fade away.

      Even more children of racist are shunning their parents beliefs on race. Let racism die on its own but do not force racist to secretly live among us with smiles on their faces and hate in their heart. You need to read the article a little more thourough

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Highly rated. What do you think? Thumb up 21 Thumb down 4

      • The civil rights aren't about turning racists into non racists. The civil rights are there to protect us from the actions of those racists. Racist ideology and the spread of it IS protected under the constitution, as it should be. But their actions shouldn't be, and among these actions is racial discrimination.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

    • SomeOneWhoKnowsBetter

      You must not understand what he said or perhaps didn't read it. he's not against equal rights, he's against infringing on anybody's personal liberties.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

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

  11. Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Poorly rated. What do you think? Thumb up 8 Thumb down 53

  12. I went into a BBQ joint in north Georgia, USA, and while I was in there the young lady who was taking orders from the small line of customers in front of me used the N-word. I walked out and never returned. I will not eat were the employees have filthy mouths and appear racist. I am not the only white guy who would be offended, and I am sure most brown skinned folks would be offended, as well. That leaves the business with fewer customers. The market place of ideas is just that, racism does not pay.

    This is from "The Law" by Fredric Bastiat, I believe it is relevant:
    ///"That science no longer be taught exclusively from the point of view of free trade (of liberty, of property, and of justice) as has been the case until now, but also, in the future, science is to be especially taught from the viewpoint of the facts and laws that regulate French industry (facts and laws which are contrary to liberty, to property, and to justice). That, in government-endowed teaching positions, the professor rigorously refrain from endangering in the slightest degree the respect due to the laws now in force." [1]

    Thus, if there exists a law which sanctions slavery or monopoly, oppression or robbery, in any form whatever, it must not even be mentioned. For how can it be mentioned without damaging the respect which it inspires? Still further, morality and political economy must be taught from the point of view of this law; from the supposition that it must be a just law merely because it is a law.

    Another effect of this tragic perversion of the law is that it gives an exaggerated importance to political passions and conflicts, and to politics in general.

    I could prove this assertion in a thousand ways. But, by way of illustration, I shall limit myself to a subject that has lately occupied the minds of everyone: universal suffrage. ///

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 9

    • Don't let that one incident influence your opinion of Georgia or the south. The disgusting behavior displayed at that one restaurant is not typical in Georgia (my state). I am well aware of the sins of our forefathers and while I am a descendant of individuals with ignorant and inconsiderate views on race relations, I, and many in my position, have progressed from the hate-breeding ignorance and I would never attempt to defend hate of any type. That being said, my granny is 87 yrs. old, worked equally alongside African-Americans as a sharecropper throughout the Civil Rights Era, and doesn't dislike anyone for any reason, much less the color of their skin, continues to use the N-word today because she was immersed in the vernacular for so long and it has become second nature. This is simply an attempt at seeing things from the point of view of those that simply know no better and not a defense of ignorance.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

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

  13. haha hahahahahahahahahahahah hahahahahahahahahahaha ahahaha point is HA HA HA :)

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 4 Thumb down 23

  14. now i'm so confused, i love so many things about ron paul, especially his foreign policy, but this thing about freedom for employers who definitely were racists, does seem wrong..i am confused. about him now...he seems like such a good man who does so many good things i can't believe he is really racist, and he's the only one who wants peace

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 22 Thumb down 36

    • Nonono. Freedom should not depend on how politically correct someone is. If someone wants to just hire one race of people for their business, it's still THEIR business, so they should be able to do as they wish. Don't you think it's better off anyway? Wouldn't the people that are mandated to be hired inevitably be treated worse since they're not wanted? Just because you disagree with someone or their views, doesn't mean you should force their behavior to be in line with yours. That's not freedom.

      I don't agree with racism, but if someone is racist it should be their choice. You must understand this.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Highly rated. What do you think? Thumb up 39 Thumb down 11

      • What if a public servant, lets say a cop, wants to be a racist. It is his choice after all. Should we not infringe on his freedom and throw out any standards of conduct or social contracts out the window?

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 6

    • So... because Ron Paul believes that Affirmative Action has only made the tension between races worst because of an unfair advantage given to one of those races..... that makes him a racist? Have you ever lost a job to a minority (this includes women, btw... not just different races) who was less qualified for a job than you but that particular company had to meet their minority quota? Affirmative Action is for minorities.... which includes WHITE women, black women, WOMEN!!!! It isn't about race, it's about what's fair, what works, and what doesn't work.... and AA doesn't work and it's not fair.

      From this article, Ron Paul says, and I quote, "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."

      That doesn't sound racist AT ALL!!!!! That sounds like a man with the capability to think outside of the box and see a situation for what it really is.... or isn't.

      OOHH!! Ron Paul saved the best racist comment for the last paragraph! He saved it for his closing!!!!!!!!!!!

      "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."

      He joins the sponsors in PROMOTING racial harmony and individual liberty by voting against something that has helped racism grow, which is ironic because what he is opposing was meant to shrink racism.... so racist, that Dr. Paul!

      Start thinking for yourself and don't believe what people tell you. Read between the lines, don't listen to their tales.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Highly rated. What do you think? Thumb up 57 Thumb down 14

      • "it also failed to achieve its stated goals of promoting racial harmony and a color-blind society." The law is less than 50 years old, yet racial oppression and discrimination were legally protected by law for over a century. So let's give this law about another century before we condemn it as a failure.
        BTW, most minorities hold low paying jobs. I have never in my life heard a white man complain that some darn minority took his crop picking job, or his cashier position at McDonald's.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

    • I believe the point Dr. Paul is trying to make is that when and employer is forced to hire somebody to fulfill a racial quota it does not foster racial harmony. Instead the people who were beat out by a sometimes under or less qualified candidate become bitter toward what they then consider an outsider.

      The very idea is flawed as a racial quota in a way reinforces a concept that a person of a different race is inferior. As an inferior the only way they can get a job is via a government mandate.

      The struggle for racial equality is a difficult one and the fight continues to this day. This fight cannot be won by the government. It can only be won by us. If a large company were proven to be racist in its hiring or practices it would fail. Not because of a politician but because we the masses have our buying power to influence change.

      That is what freedom is all about.

      The intent of the civil rights act is good, the results.... not so much.

      Think about this, the old school civil rights leaders did not whine to a government, they took to the streets. Marching, boycotting, FIGHTING for equality. We need to fight that way NOW! We have to take back our country from the special interests and elite's who now hold our constitution hostage.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Highly rated. What do you think? Thumb up 12 Thumb down 2

      • yes, they took it to the streets. To get the people to back them up when demanding governmental protection. This protection came in the form of laws.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

    • It seems you are thinking under the impression that we are a "racist " Country....as you can see, most of us are not. If there was ever a time that Companies had to be FORCED to "do the right thing"..I believe that time has passed.

      Public Pressure would quickly put a "racist" out of business. I know I would never eat at a restaurant that said, "whites only".

      Nor would I work at a Company if I continually saw well qualifed minority applicants being passed up for less qualified "whites." Not only would I not work there, I would make sure that those in my area knew about it...but ultimately a racists business would fail...a business FAILS if it keeps hiring less qualified people, no matter their color.

      This is giving "power to the people", along with letting the "free market" work..etc.

      Try to think of it that way.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

    • ron poopys big fan

      RON PAUL WANTS WAR

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

  15. What rights do we have in this country anyway; and who gave them to us???? let me see; the book, they say is the history of this country tells me that a guy named Christopher Columbus discovered this Rock.....And as he was headed
    to it's shores he noticed some people ALREADY standing there. You know that tells me someone was here already...Now; how can I claim something that someone all READY has...Not a sermon; just a thought....Can I have your wallet?

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Highly rated. What do you think? Thumb up 18 Thumb down 6

  16. To quote that as Ron Paul is a lie and misleading MMMDEE. You, like many others will stop at nothing to smear a good person who wants what is best for this country. You either benefit from this system or you are the system.

    Ron Paul doesn't even talk like that. FACT CHECK: He voted no on MLK DAY the first time it was introduced ONLY because it was an additional Gov't holiday that would cost the taxpayers money. When they reintroduced it by combining the two presidents and made it one day to add MLK Day he voted on that.

    Distorting facts, like you do, to smear a good person is exactly what got us into wars, racial tension and bankruptcy. You must get a gov't paycheck, otherwise, why would you defend such tyranny?

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Highly rated. What do you think? Thumb up 38 Thumb down 20

    • If his biggest concern was saving taxpayer money from being spent on an additional government holiday, shouldn't he have voted NO both times? Why should white guys thrown in the mix be a reason for a more appropriate way to spend taxpayer money? Think logically.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 9

    • If Ron Paul's major concern was that taxpayer money would be spent on an additional government holiday, shouldn't he have voted NO to either proposed holiday? Why does throwing two white guys into the mix make it a reasonable holiday to spend taxpayer money? Sit back and think logically.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 7

    • If you're referring to President's day. That was wrong. President's day, as it is now called, is George Washington's b'day, our greatest President.

      MLK is MKL Jr. and that's not even his real name and he plagiarized most everything he wrote, INCLUDING, is dissertation. I do NOT celebrate his b'day, his life, or his fake accomplishments.

      Affirmative Action was a creation of JFK and it was to promote fairness, and like Ron Paul, I am all for that. I am not for preferential treatment to anyone over anyone else but it is not the federal government's right to get into it or try to control/manipulate it. The US Constitution is to RESTRICT the federal government from tyranny over its people. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 is tyranny and unconstitutional. If you even consider race as part of the subject, YOU are a racist and completely too ignorant and stubborn to debate this subject.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 5

  17. This is one sick bastard speaking here. Is he really that dumb to believe that the point of that act was to improve race relations. No, that bill was to ensure some fair treatment of hiring minorities. Wake up. Was it constitutional, mabey, mabey not, but the point is many more minorities got a job where they wouldn't have due to racism. Companies don't want the government in their buisness because they don't want to be forced to do things they don't have to.
    Ooooh did I say forced. "like SLAVERY FORCED"
    Some of these candidates are off their rocker.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 33 Thumb down 47

    • Latanya, I would like to inform you that you are sadly misinformed about the quotas that have been forced upon businesses to help bring racial equality in the market for job OPPORTUNITIES. As a prime example, my father spent the better part of 10 years trying to enter the airlines business. He was an instructor, and he spent over 4,000 hours trying to build time in an effort to be noticed by major airlines. Now, I don't know if you are familiar with the 1994 hijacking of a FEDEX airplane by an employee of theirs, but let me tell you the story. Auburn Calloway was a result of these quotas two times in his brief and fruitless flying career. Once, in the Navy, he was flunked in flight training multiple times, never able to land on a carrier by himself. Most pilots who cannot complete this are usually kicked out of training and assigned another job. However, these quotas imposed by the government made sure that Calloway was kept in the seat, seeing as he made a huge fuss about his being "racially profiled." He was kept in the right seat of a Navy plane, and only given day clearance to fly. This means that he was essentially there for the ride, and only on one-in-a-million kind of days. After leaving the Navy, he applied to work at FEDEX, where, again, the quotas seemed to shuffle people into places where they do not belong. After lying about his hours, Calloway was hired, only for FEDEX to realize that he had little to know experience or ability behind the controls. This sort of quiet and forceful bureaucracy causes people, like my father, who spend their lives trying to achieve their goals, to be cut off by senseless and skill-less people like Calloway to get hired before them. So, before you jump to the false conclusion that these quotas allow for "minorities get a job... the wouldn't have due to racism," understand that it may not be due to racism, and the result of reverse racism can lead to disastrous results, such as this hijacking.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Highly rated. What do you think? Thumb up 46 Thumb down 15

      • For every story like this, there's a story of a qualified minority (like my own mom & dad) getting jobs where they previously wouldn't have been able to, becoming part of the middle class, and reversing stereotypes through positive interaction with non-minority co-workers.
        The Navy story sounds like the same thing as the Ft. Hood shooter, where extreme cowardice kept people from taking appropriate action when it became clear that he was becoming dangerous.
        There are bad apples everywhere. I'm sure there are many stories about incompetent people who had degrees from Ivy League schools that they only got into because of the legacy program, who got preferential treatment throughout their careers, and ended up with super high powered jobs due mainly to family connections and money...

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Highly rated. What do you think? Thumb up 36 Thumb down 3

      • Public Law 82-352 (78 Stat. 241). Passed in 1964 did not include ANY quotas and did not include ANY mention of "Affirmative action." The stated purpose was to establish if the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment ban always ban the use of racial, ethnic, or gender criteria. It did not mandate that less qualified people be given jobs they didn't deserve. It simply said that everyone deserved the same chance and was designed to combat the very real istuitionized discrimination in the Southern who had instuitionized discrimination. It addressed important concerns that gave the federal government the right to get involved with discrimination at the local and state level. I am sure there are many indivual stories you could site that would support your point to view.
        MLK -April 16, 1963. It may be true that the law cannot make a man love me, but it can keep him from lynching me." This is the legislation Ron Paul voted againest, not statues from later rulings.

        1963- Medgar W. Evers murdered Jackson Mississippi June 12 1963
        Addie Mae Collins, age 10, murdered Birmingham Alabama September 15
        Denise McNairm age 11, murdered Birmingham Alabama September 15
        Carol Robertson, age 14, murdered Birmingham Alabama September 15
        Johnny Robinson, age 16, murdered Birmingham Alabama September 15
        Virgil Ware, age 13, murdered Birmingham Alabama September 15 1963
        Cynthia Wesley, age 14, murdered Birmingham Alabama September 15

        1964- Mrs. Johnnie Mae Chappell murdered Jacksonville Florida March 23
        Charles E. Moore lynched Jackson Mississippi May 2 1964
        Henry Dee lynched Jackson Mississippi May 2 1964
        James Earl Chaney murdered Philadelphia Mississippi June 21 1964
        Lemuel Augustus Penn murdered Colbert Georgia July 11 1964
        James Powell murdered New York City New York July 16 1964
        Jay Jenkins murdered New York City New York July 18 1964

        This is what the civil rights amendment was about EQUAL PROTECTION. The states weren’t doing their jobs so the Federal Govt had to.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Highly rated. What do you think? Thumb up 20 Thumb down 3

      • JustinAnonymous; I'm sorry about what happened to your father but the law was not designed so that less qualified minorities could beat out whites for jobs so that the staff was racially mixed. The law was designed so that equally qualified minorities could get jobs that bigots would not have given them simply based on the color of their skin.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Highly rated. What do you think? Thumb up 17 Thumb down 3

        • Unfortunately it doesnt work that way. Being in the hiring field I can tell you that quite a few companies submit to surveys asking specifically "total employees; total African-American employees; total other minorities". I myself purchase these reports and consult for companies that want to make sure they are along the lines of the national average in diversity, even if that means turning a higher qualified person away.
          The Civil Rights act was to stop acts of racial discrimination in and out of the workplace. What I see is that it has actually caused more discrimination, only against whites. We are told in everything we do that blacks and other minorities are to be treated equal while never speaking about the fact that blacks and other minorities are to be treated differently in that they are to be looked at first for jobs, considered first for public aid, and allowed to say what ever they have on their mind no matter how discriminitory it may be.
          If you speak back your racist. If you retaliate youre a racist. But, if youre white you cant really expect to claim racial discriminstion because, well youre white.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

    • The employer should be free to decide who he hires and who he doesn't, the government should not be forcing anyone to hire certain people over others based on the color of their skin.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Highly rated. What do you think? Thumb up 47 Thumb down 10

      • The 1964 Act agrees with you
        -Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That this Act may be cited as the "Civil Rights Act of 1964".

        (j) NOTHING contained in this title SHALL BE INTERPRETED TO REQUIRE any employer, employment agency, labor organization, or joint labor-management committee subject to this title TO GRANT PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT TO ANY INDIVIDUAL OR TO ANY GROUP BECAUSE OF THE RACE, COLOR, RELIGION, SEX, OR NATIONAL ORIGIN OF SUCH INDIVIDUAL OR GROUP ON ACCOUNT OF AN IMBALANCE WHICH MAY EXIST WITH RESPECT TO THE TOTAL NUMBER OR PERCENTAGE OF PERSONS OF ANY RACE, COLOR, RELIGION, SEX, OR NATIONAL ORIGIN EMPLOYED BY ANY EMPLOYER.
        This is what Ron Paul voted against, not some quota or attack on property rights. The explanations you and many others have expressed are based on provisions that came after his vote. You can choose to disagree on his rational for the vote but not on the text he voted against and the facts surrounding that vote. Over 100 years of institutionalized racism had been the tradition in the south. Suggestions that after almost a century those states would have made those changes in the last 40 years without any Government intervention is not a responsible argument. As someone who comes from a mixed race family, I thank God the decisions were not left to the individual States because it’s hard to believe that I would have existed in Georgia and almost certainly would not have been admitted to the Law School at UNC. Thank God not everyone agreed with Ron Paul in 1964.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Highly rated. What do you think? Thumb up 17 Thumb down 3

    • So you think it's okay to hire someone into a position who isn't quite qualified over someone who IS qualified... just because they have a racial quota to make? You want to be hired based on the color of your skin and not because of your capabilities? You want to earn respect based on the color of your skin and not based on your intelligence, ethics, abilities and so on? You would be a DISGRACE to MLK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 7

      • Clearly, Jen, you do not understand how the Civil Rights Act of 1964 works or what it says. It did NOT require employers to hire unqualified workers because they were from an underprivileged background or racial minority. It applied the Substantial Due Process and the Equal Protection clauses of the 14th Amendment to private citizens who run public accommodations so that they could not discriminate based on certain criteria, e.g., race, religion, ethnicity. So if you think a business should be able to have one bathroom for whites and another for 'coloreds' then clearly you would be opposed to the Civil Rights Act. If you think a private business open to the public should be able to exclude people solely based on their sex or race or religion, then clearly you would be opposed to the Civil Rights Act. If you think that the 'free market' would've ended segregation and no legislation was needed, you are simply deluding yourself. Saying that things are worse because of the Civil Rights Act or that things have gotten better "in spite" of the Civil Rights Act is simply unhistorical. Anyone who thinks that the 10th Amendment trumps the 14th Amendment (or should trump it) does not understand the most basic principles of how the Constitution works and how the amending process works. Just as the 21st Amendment repealed the 18th, so the 14th limited the 10th. It would be chronologically (and plain logically) IMPOSSIBLE for the 10th amendment to curtail the 14th in those particular arenas for which the 14th was intended, that is, broadening the rights of citizens vis-a-vis the subnational state governments.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Highly rated. What do you think? Thumb up 12 Thumb down 1

    • If a company does not want to hire a person based on race, religion, etc...why would the person want to work there? That is where the solution is. There are people hiring based on skill regardless of race and they have the diversified workforce and record profits. The ones that continue being racist will eventually fail because they are hiring based on skin color.

      His point is that you can not force someone to be something they are not but you can make it a harder world for them to live in. Change needs to come naturally not forced and Americans have been doing just that. Nowhere in the world will you see such diversity.

      Oh by the way I am a Pacific Isalnder and my wife is African American before you go thinking I am some old white racsist guy.

      Would you rather be around someone who hides his racism and secretly hate and undermines you or do you want to be around someone who is open so you can watch your back better.

      It is harder to catch a racist because we dont allow them to be themselves and be deceptive to our faces. If someone tells me they dont like a certain race then too bad for you but at least I know where you stand as opposed to smiling in my face secretly plotting to harm me.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1

      • "If a company does not want to hire a person based on race, religion, etc…why would the person want to work there? " Because they need to eat. Who the heck wants to go work the fields? Or clean bathrooms, or vomit and feces from a hospital? We do what we can to feed our young. As it is, so many companies keep violating worker's rights, but people stay because jobs out of necessity.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

  18. http://www.littleredumbrella.com/2012/01/lets-be-clear-ron-paul-fucking-sucks.html

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 8 Thumb down 21

    • That article in the Little Red Umbrella is a very dangerous one. Let me explain. It is not very well researched. I will say, however, that it is VERY effective in getting sheep to follow and forward the message. Particularly those who can't wait to get their hands on something negative because they already dislike Ron Paul. Not so easy to do, since he is very consistent and really doesn't look to harm anyone.
      In a nutshell, Ron Paul wants the Federal Government to stay out of our lives. Even though he believes in the right to life, he doesn't want to force his belief on you- hence what every other politician wants. That is why he wants to overturn Roe v Wade, so that each state can do what they people vote on-States Rights. Consistently, Ron Paul says the same thing with regard to the drug laws. He feels the States should regulate it like we already do with alcohol. Just because a president is pro choice, or pro life, shouldn't have an effect on everyone, because the president isn't supposed to be a King. If you believe in that, than you are equally oppressive, pushing your values or what is important to you on a person who might be religiously opposed.
      There is a deep misunderstanding of our Constitution in this country. This could be why there was a Civil Rights Act in the first place. If they just adhered to the Right to Private Property Act in 1787(I believe that is the 14th Amendment), minorities wouldn't have needed the Civil Rights Act. We should have re-elected members of congress and changed a few judges and they would enforce the existing law that blacks are entitled to the same rights and property because that is their human right! Ron Paul deplored Jim Crow Laws, stating we are all better off without them. He voted Yes on MLK day to replace another paid Federal holiday, because he actually is one of his heroes. Check all of his Congressional Record, not just part of it. He admired MLK’s strength to stand up and demonstrate Civil Disobedience to an oppressive government. He sees the injustices in the legal system with regard to non-violent drug crimes and how it has jailed many of the blacks, doing more harm than good to their communities and families. This is why he would pardon all non-violent drug criminals and fix what now world-wide drug cartel is. He loves freedom, not just for white people! His position is that he has no right to determine who deserves freedom as per the Constitution that says it is your human birthright! He wants you to work at whatever your wage is, but keep all of it! He feels that they are the fruits of your labor the Government has no right to take it. What better way to help the poor and the minority? I don’t know a better liberal Democrat for Civil Rights, or a more Conservative Republican with sound Economic solutions. I don’t know a more Liberal Democrat is for peace and harmony as Ron Paul. Anyone who can attempt to say otherwise is merely lying. Perhaps they don’t care to see the truth and prefer to continue the lie that has become the bedrock of our crumbling free society.
      There is way to much that is distorted in this article, that I would have to re-write it. If you want to read something that explains "Reasons That Ron Paul suck", read "Liberty Defined", before you claim you know enough about Ron Paul's positions to debate them. You may still disagree with him, but at least you can think critically for yourself. Otherwise, you are just another useful idiot perpetuating a parasitically, oppressive regime called the STATUS QUO.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Highly rated. What do you think? Thumb up 36 Thumb down 4

      • Maybe all the states should just enlist huge armies and start attacking the states around them, like they did in ancient greece

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 3

      • Ron Paul Newsletter Dec 1990"[King] was also a Comsymp, if not an actual party member, and the man who replaced the evil of forced segregation with the evil of forced integration. King, the FBI files show, was not only a world-class adulterer, he also seduced underage girls and boys.... And we are supposed to honor this 'Christian minister' and lying socialist satyr...?" The bottom of the same page reads "My wife Carol and our children and grandchildren join me in wishing you and your family a wonderful Christmas..." This is not taken out of context it is from a scan of the newsletters as they were originally printed.
        Martin Luther King was not one of his heroes! He did not indicate that he admired King; there are a long list of statements he made and printed to the contrary. His opposition is part of the congressional record! 1964 civil rights amendment was about allowing the federal government to step in and offer protection to minorities in those states where they were not receiving equal treatment. It's only had an affect on the property rights of those businesses that were participating in denying others their human rights and equal treatment as mandated by the constitution.
        The purpose of the Civil Rights amendment was to address States that were not adhering to the 14th amendment. That was the whole point!

        Ron Paul Newsletter—February, 1990:
        The Coming Race War and Shame of MLK Day
        "Boy, it sure burns ME to have a national holiday for that pro-communist philanderer, Martin Luther King. I voted against this outrage time and time again as a Congressman. What an infamy that Ronald Reagan approved it! We can thank him for our annual Hate Whitey Day. Listen to a black radio talk show in any major city. The racial hatred makes a KKK rally look tame."

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 3

        • http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/ron-paul-and-the-racist-newsletters-fact-checker-biography/2011/12/21/gIQAKNiwBP_blog.html

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      • Wow, lots of errors here. First let's dispense with the most glaring:

        If they just adhered to the Right to Private Property Act in 1787(I believe that is the 14th Amendment), minorities wouldn’t have needed the Civil Rights Act.

        For someone who deplores the misunderstanding of the US Constitution, you show a lot of it yourself. The 14th Amendment was added to the Constitution in 1868 after the Civil War to extend the rights of the Bill of Rights to all US Citizens, including the recently freed slaves. The US Constitution was not ratified and made the governing law of the land until 1788. It is true that the 14th Amendment was not followed early on, but that is not the same as saying that the Civil Rights Act was not necessary. Prior to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 a private business owner could demand that whole classes of citizens could not enter his public accommodation (i.e., open to the public for business). If he was a Christian and thought you were a Jew, he could exclude you; if he was white and didn't want any blacks to be served in his restaurant, that's exactly what he would do, exclude blacks. Maybe you think that a free society should allow racists to discriminate in their businesses so that they are open to the public, except for x, y and z group. That is not my idea of freedom and liberty. Any democracy that does not have protections for minorities quickly turns into an okhlocracy, i.e., mob rule.

        Would somebody please explain to me how it would be a good thing for liberty to curtail the power of the federal government to restrain the state governments from violating the rights of citizens? Does Ron Paul really think that it should be up to the states to determine whether they can establish their own state religion? He seems to have a real problem with the incorporation doctrine of the 14th Amend, so in other words he wants the state of say, Texas, to be free from the federal government's power to prevent them from passing laws that would violate, for instance, freedom of the press. I think a lot of Paul followers need to study up on state's rights vis-a-vis the 14th Amendment and the incorporation doctrine. Unless you want to see the possibility of the state government in Sacramento passing a law declaring the Church of Scientology to be the official state church of California, you don't agree with Ron Paul. While this scenario is honestly highly unlikely, it would be Constitutionally permissible under Paul's ideas of states' rights and the 14th amendment's incorporation doctrine. I can easily imagine state laws discriminating against Muslims. Without the 14th Amendment and the Incorporation Doctrine, this would be absolutely legal - without the 14th the only guarantee that we have is that the "Congress shall pass no laws regarding etc" --- state governments faced no such restrictions unless they had written them into their own state constitutions. So PLEASE stop equating states' rights with individual or civil rights.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 2

        • Jim...

          You lost me when you said we were a democracy. You clearly do not understand the political spectrum. We are NOT a democracy, never have been and hopefully never will be, because democracies are bad, very bad and they lead to oligarchies, which are the worst.

          Freedom has no restrictions. Ever been to a Chinese restaurant? See any Mexicans, blacks, whites working there? Rarely.

          Free, in freedom, means just that. Free. From from ANY regulation. Not just free, except for this, that, oh and that too.

          What you want is tyranny. You want control over someone else's hiring practices and property and that's tyranny. Freedom means you have to respect that which you disagree or you are a hypocrite.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1

        • You are saying that a State Constitution could override the Federal Constitution?

          I don't belive that States could clearly violate anything that is in the Federal Constitution..even if they tried.

          In other words..they don't need to "write in" "Freedom of Religion", to be bound by it.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      • please don't forget that the US did try to have a weak central government, back when there were only 13 states. It didn't succeed. Granted, the decision to have a strong central government wasn't endorsed by the vast majority of the states, but even those that did oppose it decided it was more important to keep the union together.
        Also, how is Ron Paul gonna overturn Roe v Wade? Doesn't the supreme court have the last say on legislation? What procedure would he use? And before you accuse me of being a troll or hater, this is a serious question. So if you have any knowledge then let me know. I don't really like the supreme court to have absolute say on the law, but to change the checks and balances system is a frightening thought.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        • I'm not a lawyer, but, RoeVs. Wade is a LAW, not a Constitutional Amendment.

          I don't know the "hows", but the "why" would be that it's a law that violates the Constituion.

          Even an unborn baby is entitled to equal protection under the law to preserve it's life.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

          • Whoa..sorry for the typos..but let me add,

            I am not sure we could/should even allow the States to violate the US Constitutional Rights of an innocent life...but that is just MY opinion.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  19. Interesting quotes by Ron Paul part 2

    “Today’s current terminology describing rights reflects this sad change. It is commonplace for politicians and those desiring special privileges to refer to: black rights, Hispanic rights, handicap rights, employee rights, student rights, minority rights, women’s rights, gay rights, children’s rights, Asian-American rights, Jewish rights, AIDS victims’ rights, poverty rights, homeless rights, etc.”—Ron Paul, Freedom Under Siege

    The idea that a businessman must hire anyone and is prevented from firing anyone for any reason he chooses, and in the name of rights, is a clear indication that the basic concept of a free society has been lost. - Ron Paul, Freedom Under Siege

    The individual suffering from AIDS certainly is a victim - frequently a victim of his own lifestyle - but this same individual victimizes innocent citizens by forcing them to pay for his care- Ron Paul, Freedom Under Siege

    I also do an investment letter. It’s called the Ron Paul Survival Report, and I put that out on a monthly basis … which is a gold-oriented newsletter, but it’s also, uh, convening — expressing concern about surviving in this age of big government, where there’s a lot of taxes and regulations, and attacks on our personal liberties.” -- Ron Paul http://hotair.com/archives/2011/12/26/paul-in-1995-say-have-you-read-the-ron-paul-survival-report/

    “Boy, it sure burns me to have a national holiday for Martin Luther King. I voted against this outrage time and time again as a Congressman. What an infamy that Ronald Reagan approved it! We can thank him for our annual Hate Whitey Day.” - Ron Paul News Letters that wasn't written by Ron Paul but interesting thing is...Ron Paul Voted against MLK Day as a federal holiday http://www.thestatecolumn.com/articles/did-ron-paul-vote-against-creating-a-martin-luther-king-holiday/

    Ciao.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 5

  20. Interesting quotes by Ron Paul.

    To be noted by the way: Ron Paul is rated 39% by the NAACP and 38% by the HRC. These are two big civil rights groups.

    We quadrupled the TSA, you know, and hired more people who look more suspicious to me than most Americans who are getting checked… Most of them are, well, you know, they just don’t look very American to me.- Ron Paul http://www.salon.com/2007/06/02/ron_paul_6/

    WHY DON’T THEY QUIT ONCE THE SO-CALLED HARASSMENT STARTS? OBVIOUSLY THE MORALS OF THE HARASSER CAN NOT BE DEFENDED, BUT HOW CAN THE HARASSEE ESCAPE SOME RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE PROBLEM?"Ron Paul, in his book Freedom Under Siege

    “Every year new groups organize to demand their “rights.” White people who organize and expect the same attention as other groups are quickly and viciously condemned as dangerous bigots. Hispanic, black, and Jewish caucuses can exist in the U.S. Congress, but not a white caucus, demonstrating the absurdity of this approach for achieving rights for everyone.”—Ron Paul, Freedom Under Siege

    part 1

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 7

Leave a Reply

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


seven − = 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=""> <strike> <strong>