6 votes

HuffPost: Method to the Madness in Ron Paul's War Against Civil Rights


GOP presidential candidate Ron Paul still wages war against civil rights. And we really shouldn't be surprised since Paul has repeatedly gotten into hot water nearly every time he opens his mouth about anything that remotely touches on race. But this time Paul sailed past the outer limits with his defiant boast that he would not have voted for the landmark 1964 civil rights bill. That's right the 1964 bill; a bill that's been the law of the land for nearly six decades, and Paul still opposes.

Paul's rap against the bill is just as absurd and tortured as the rap that Southern Democrats and Northern GOP conservatives who bottled the bill up for more than a year in Congress used to pretty up their opposition to it. It violated property rights. Paul, nearly six decades after their efforts failed, tells Chris Matthews, "...I'm for property rights and for state's rights, and therefore I'm a racist, that's just outlandish."

But what else would you call it? The equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment wiped away the bogus claim that property rights trumps racial discrimination a century before Paul and Jim Crow maintenance proponents used this ploy to torpedo the civil rights bill. There's method, though, to Paul's silly and repeated knock of the law. He's now a declared 2012 GOP presidential candidate. And he knows full well that there are legions of frustrated, disgusted, even enraged defrocked GOP backers and purported libertarians that are desperate to have an alternative to the drab, lackluster, and downright zany cast of would be GOP presidential contenders.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

IF legislation works

why are we having THIS conversation.

My opinion

Civil Rights tramps on someone's civil right. We are no longer equal, legally. It has nothing to do with ownership.
That was settled.

When you come to a fork in the road take it. YOGGI.

Fight for the right

to own a blacks only bar.

Fight for the right To own a Hispanics only dating service.

Fight for social niches!

You nailed it

That's a perfect response.

No need to fight for that

No need to fight for that stuff--it's already legal or so it seems. No one in the current DOJ brings suits bout that stuff

Follow me on Twitter for breaking news from a libertarian perspective


It's not in most metro areas

it's considered discrimination. For example, dating sights must let gays join straight sites and straights join gay sites. Same with race specific sites and establishments, you cannot refuse entry based on the civil code.

If Ron Paul is a racist, so

If Ron Paul is a racist, so are Thomas Sowell and Walter E. Williams.

"The cornerstone of his

"The cornerstone of his appeal is his view of government and what it should or should not do about civil rights."

The above quote has got to be one of the clearest demonstrations of advanced stage braindamage I have ever seen published. Even by the lackluster standards of Progtards, believing that a cornerstone of RP's appeal has anything to do with the Civil Rights act, has got to be idiotic in the extreme.

Not The Fed, not the wars or foreign policy, not individual rights, not sound money or anything else that the Good Doctor has written books and spoken about about for decades. But that peculiar progtard obsession, the Civil Rights act....

Please, please, please, let those of us somewhat higher up the evolutionary ladder, secede from this kind of rabble.

Maybe the campaign should

Maybe the campaign should arrange some type of educational press conference, much like the Rudy's Reading List press conference, where Ron, joined by some other libertarian thinkers, explains his position on this issue, and it could be referred to as 'Educating Chris Matthews'. :)

He could explain about he would have handled the Jim Crow laws, CRA, etc., and state emphatically to the nation that he is FOR Civil Rights and FOR personal liberty, and that it CAN work in our society, then explain how, etc. Just some thoughts...


Happy Libertarian

Just wait until the Paul/Obama debate

They know they will have a big problem on their hands with Ron Paul.

Another purposefully ignorant

Another purposefully ignorant article. Not worth my time reading.

NOTE: I am not advocating violence in any way. The content of the post is for intellectual, theoretical, and philosophical discussion. FEDS, please don't come to my house.

Freedom is better at stopping racism than legislation

Here is on I believe Ron should handle the civil rights issue:

"Racism is idiotic and restaurants should NOT be allowed to turn away blacks. The question becomes how to prevent restaurants from being racist? The options are legislation (that is, making criminals of small businesses exercising their right to property) or market forces (that is, bankrupting idiots). There are good arguments on both sides, but because I am a proud American who believes in liberty, I support the latter.

How many small businesses have been destroyed by frivolous lawsuits based on civil rights violations? These laws chiefly help the lawyers and give ammunition to the racists. I believe the free market can better handle racist businesses without burdening the moral ones because I believe in the American people.

However, I have not made repealing the CRA a part of my campaign and I will not make it a part of my presidency. This is a irrelevant distraction designed to make freedom appear racist.

What are the motives of someone wanting to make Freedom and our country's heritage look racist? Perhaps it is someone in favor of destroying our currency for the sake of waging war all across the globe, all for the profit of a few banks and the military industrial complex.

Freedom cannot be segmented. It is a package deal. It is for the brave, which is exactly what I believe we are."

Clarification Sought

"Racism is idiotic and restaurants should NOT be allowed to turn away blacks."

Without answering your assumption the discrimination is ethnic and that it's against a black person, this: allowed? Who besides the business owner can tell himself, that is, allow himself, permit himself, to do what he wants to his business? Allowance, or permission, from what's external to the business owner is fine? If so, then property ownership is nothing more than two words. To clarify:

Which statement do you live:
1) Act without harm to anyone except yourself if you want to harm yourself OR
2) Obtain permission to act? If you want or live this statement, your saying allowance is correct.

A person who has a business can do what he wants to his business. The person who was discriminated for whatever reason will act accordingly. Because the place, a restaurant, usually has people in it, so too will people who witness the incident.

Or did you not intend to type the word allowed?

School's fine. Just don't let it get in the way of thinking. -Me

Study nature, not books. -Walton F. Dutton

Focus on individual rights, not group rights

"Civil Rights" is the left's sacred cow, but what about individual rights? I doubt they could even pronounce those two words in succession.

Collectivists don't believe in individual rights, just mob rule, democracy in action.

Remember, we are individuals, are we not?


It's so pervasive though...

It's so pervasive though... even our "pledge of alegence" was written by a collectivist.. more proof that future vision and planning > all.

I agree, the focus should be on individuals, never groups, subsets etc...

“One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors.” Plato

Ron Paul Not handling Things Well...

Face it, Ron Paul is off to a terrible start by any standard. After announcing his candidacy for President in 2012 -- instead of using that moment wisely to emphasize the Federal Reserve/Wall Street shakedown of America and building upon his considerable support -- he spent his time talking about voting against the Civil Rights Act (the same mistake that almost sunk Rand Paul's Senate Campaign), talking about cooperation with Pakistan at the expense of leaving Bin Laden at large, and making an issue out of FEMA during a Flood crisis.

Whether or not we agree with some or all of these points is irrelevant. This was just not smart Politics here, and it is not the message that is going to win the Primaries for Ron Paul. The lack of Campaign discipline, and self-sabatoge is surprising here given that by now Paul should know a thing or two about Campaigns after all this time.

Ron Paul should have used the week play to his strengths: The Federal Reserve argument (and argument that he is slowly winning), the War argument (a won argument reversed by the Osama fervor), and the deficit issue.

But you cannot possibly get any traction by going around and saying you are against The Civil Rights Act, regardless of the technical argument -- this is not going to win over any votes (and it can only stunt and kill off votes that you might otherwise have had).

Ron Paul might as well announce that he wants David Duke to be his Vice President. There is just no value in ringing the dinner bell on this issue.

What we have learned so far this week is that Ron Paul is a anti-Civil-Rights, heroin legalizer that wants Flood victims to die, but not before taking away their Social Security. That's how all this stuff plays on National TV. You can blame the Media if you like (and they are worthy of blame), but you also have to recognize that this Campaign is very badly off-message and trying to fight on the narrowest of all possible grounds -- by its own choice.


The issues are: 1) The Federal Reserve, 2) Corporatism, 3) The Endless Wars, 4) The Deficit, 5) The U.S. Dollar, 6) Cutting Overseas spending, 7) The Patriot Act, 8) NAFTA, etc.

These are the issues that can unite the Independents, Progressives, Conservatives together and create the type of voting block that will produce Victories.

The Ron Paul Campaign is adrift of any sensible stragety and message -- and needs to play the game a lot smarter that this.

Otherwise we will be routed again, and this is just the truth.

I don't blame Ron Paul

I go on these web sites and get into the comments.

I point out that Ron Paul has never introduced bills to eliminate civil rights and these racist comments are coming from those who are afraid Ron Paul is going to eliminate war profiteering, which is what is really going on.

Partly Ron's fault, but I

Partly Ron's fault, but I would attribute some of the blame to the media for loading the questions.

"The economy's not a class you can master in college. To think otherwise is the pretense of knowledge."


i thought the same thing. he's kind of stumbled out of the starting blocks

He isn't bringing it up. They are insisting he answer.

So why don't you suggest a better response? You can post it here, or over on Jefferson's thread regarding his plans to connect the grassroots with the campaign: http://www.dailypaul.com/164810/im-sending-rp-a-care-package...

I have been thinking about this all morning. I agree it's a serious dilemma. If it's so obvious to you what the best honest response is to the question - "You said you would not have voted for the Civil Rights Act - why not?" then, please, share it verbatim.

Nailed it!

He ain't getting any momentum or new followers with his recent sound bites.

And without that stuff he is lucky if he even comes close to winning one primary

Follow me on Twitter for breaking news from a libertarian perspective


So Bobby, what do you suggest?

What would be a better way of responding to the specific question?

Just yes yes I support civil

Just yes yes I support civil rights for all Americans. I was not in Congress in so that is an inapt question.

Follow me on Twitter for breaking news from a libertarian perspective


Censorship on the Huff again.

I tried to post a pro-Ron Paul comment that said this racism charge is just a lying distraction to his anti-intervention policies that threaten the war profiteers.

They put me in pending so the post doesn't show up until it's four or five pages back, where it would never be seen.

Ron Paul has never introduced a racist bill.

that's how they roll

censorship is the norm at huffpo. don't waste too much time there. they can't win the argument so they have an army of censors to keep the left dumbed down from the truth. rather sad what they've become.

Official Daily Paul BTC address: 16oZXSGAcDrSbZeBnSu84w5UWwbLtZsBms
My ฿itcoin: 17khsA7MvBJAGAPkhrFJdQZPYKgxAeXkBY

Nowhere in the 14th Amendment

does it "wipe away the bogus claim that property rights trumps racial discrimination" and grouping Paul with Jim Crow maintenance proponents is outlandish and ridiculously excessive, if not completely libelous.

How do liberals read all this extra nonsense about the 14th Amendment? all it says in it is:

"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."

How can the author of this article claim that this places anti-discriminatory practices above property rights? Do these people read the constitution, or do they just use it as justification for whatever they want and hope no one else actually takes the time to look it up and study it?

Yes but...

...girls can join the Boy Scouts. Boys cannot join the Girl Scouts.

(This is a response to VelveetaUnderground's reference below. I'm having trouble with my Reply function.)

It might not win us votes

...but it does keep us consistent and principled. It would be disastrous to try to back-pedal on any issue that undermines the understanding of liberty. We have enough politicians telling people what they want to hear just to get elected. Let's not succumb to the temptation to suggest that Ron Paul should do the same.

Wait--I thought we were in it

Wait--I thought we were in it to win it this time?

Follow me on Twitter for breaking news from a libertarian perspective



We are in it to spread the idea of Liberty.

Grasping for power is not Dr. Paul's goal. He would willingly sacrifice all opportunity to win in order to answer a question honestly, with a freedom-friendly answer. Even if that answer would be twisted (a la Chris Matthews).

If we win, great. If we lose, and the idea of Liberty is fostered, that's even better.