The only Congressman to vote against commemorating the 1964 Civil Rights Act

[The Wiseman]

Is none other than.......Ron Paul!

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul188.html

Last week, Congress hailed the 40th anniversary of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The heroic Ron Paul was the only member of Congress to vote No. Here is his statement. ~ Ed.

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.

[Drizzle]

[Bob]

When did America have significant race-based quotas? Truth is reverse occurs even today. Taxes sourced from the Black, Brown, and Red folks goes into employment ventures that is designed to exclude them. Everyone and their mother who earns a good salary by working as, say a health professional in Baltimore have been consuming blood of the oppressed.

I must say, progressive policies seem to lean toward 0% efficiency, but parasitic counterparts go up 110% in this wasteland. Man weren't created equally after all. Now I shall show Paul some love, by providing quotes from Thomas Sowell, Black Libertarian who clearly outdoes Paul in the personal hygiene department:

"The first lesson of economics is scarcity: there is never enough of anything to fully satisfy all those who want it. The first lesson of politics is to disregard the first lesson of economics."

"One of the sad signs of our times is that we have demonized those who produce, subsidized those who refuse to produce, and canonized those who complain."

People who think that they are being "exploited" should ask themselves whether they would be missed if they left, or whether people would say: "Good riddance"?

Some of the people on death row today might not be there if the courts had not been so lenient on them when they were first offenders.

When I see the worsening degeneracy in our politicians, our media, our educators, and our intelligentsia, I can’t help wondering if the day may yet come when the only thing that can save this country is a military coup.

The Messiah has arrived. Human evolution * infinity.

[Drizzle]

So are you saying integration made it easier to discriminate economically?

[Bob]

So are you saying integration made it easier to discriminate economically?

Yes, it reduced accountability. Integration, itself was only designed to implemented the same slave-esque policies that were present in white-controlled segregation. Same shit different by presented by the same oppressors.

Ron Paul et al think otherwise, and understand that policies that can peak 30% can be rolled back 0%. He is the extreme that'll take us to hell, while the "positive" extrema is status quo. Must say, I love Thomas Sowell:

Before the Iraq war I was quite disturbed by some of the neoconservatives, who were saying things like, "What is the point of being a superpower if you can't do such-and-such, take on these responsibilities?" The point of being a superpower is that people will leave you alone. (The American Enterprise, Sept 2004)

One arms him or herself with knowledge and power to ensure that mutualism is requisite in interactions. If not, mutually assured destruction will follow. Real talk.

[Godfather of Soul]

Wow...I can't believe I am just NOW looking at this.  FUCK YOU RON PAUL.

[JJ]

He's a potential presidential candidate too...What are the chances of this gaining national attention throughout the presidential campaign race?

[Drizzle]

Wow...I can't believe I am just NOW looking at this.  FUCK YOU RON PAUL.

LOL

[tlg4freedom]

So what your saying is that the Civil Rights Act fixed the problem? 

My opinion is that blacks and other minorities already had those rights, but were being denied.  The Constitution states All men are created equal, but corrupt and racist interpretation was the problem.  If the founders' intent was a "white only" constitution then they would have written it as such.  Jim Crow laws and forced segragation were unconstitutional to begin with.  The Federal Gov. through the Constitution already had the authority to enforce what the Civil Rights Act claims to have granted.  So, it was only symbolic.

Do you all really think that this country could revert to those days and laws if Ron Paul was elected?  I don't and I won't let it, I would die first.
I won't be subservient to anyone including government.

[Drizzle]

If the founders' intent was a "white only" constitution then they would have written it as such.  Jim Crow laws and forced segragation were unconstitutional to begin with.

See, thats the problem. The founders never thought we would ever be considered human beings that are more than property.  We were sub-human.  And stop riding Alex Jone's dick.  You can agree with some of the things he says, but you don't have to agree with all of it.
Posted on: December 21, 2007, 09:09:30 amShit, part of the reason America had the Revolutionary War was because King George also was putting preasure on them to end the slavery.  They don't wanta teach that shit in schools.

[tlg4freedom]

Fuck Alex Jones.  He's doesn't think for me and I don't even listen to him.

So why are you bringing him into this debate? Your the only one in this thread referencing him.

[Drizzle]

Fuck Alex Jones.  He's doesn't think for me and I don't even listen to him.

So why are you bringing him into this debate? Your the only one in this thread referencing him.

Oh, I thought you were one of the people that listened to everything he said religiously. My bad.
Posted on: December 21, 2007, 09:32:22 amCause he always uses your avatar in his propaganda.

[tlg4freedom]

Check yo history too

"Jefferson's reference to the role of the British Crown in the continuance of slavery in Virginia is significant. Virginia, as a British colony, was subject to the laws of Great Britain, and those laws, executed by order of King George III, prevented every attempt to end slavery in America or in any British colony. The specific law which the Crown invoked to strike down the attempts of the Colonies to free slaves had been passed in 1766 (three years before Jefferson's election to office and his first efforts to end slavery), and declared:

Be it declared by the King's most Excellent Majesty . . . that the said Colonies and plantations in America have been, are, and of right ought to be, subordinate unto and dependent upon the Imperial Crown and Parliament of Great Britain; and that the King's Majesty . . . had, hath, and of right ought to have, full power and authority to make laws and statutes of sufficient force and validity to bind the Colonies and people of America, subjects of the crown of Great Britain, in all cases whatsoever. And be it further declared and enacted by the authority aforesaid that all resolution, votes, orders, and proceedings whereby the power and authority of the Parliament of Great Britain to make laws and statutes . . . is denied, or drawn into question, are, and are hereby declared to be, utterly null and void to all intents and purposes whatsoever. 

This law gave to the Crown the unilateral and unambiguous power to strike down any and all American laws on any subject whatsoever.

Significantly, prior to the American Revolution some of the Colonies had voted to end slavery in their State, but those State laws had been struck down by the King.  This inability of individual Colonies to abolish slavery, even when they wished to do so, had caused Thomas Jefferson to include in the Declaration of Independence a listing of this grievance as one of the reasons propelling America to separate from Great Britain."

http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=99

Research...Read...then think for yourself.  Not disrespecting,  there is just a lot of misinformation out there.

[Drizzle]

http://www.amazon.com/Slavery-Founders-Race-Liberty-Jefferson/dp/0765604396

I find contradicting sources on this matter, but more say what you said.

[The Wiseman]

So what your saying is that the Civil Rights Act fixed the problem? 

The Civil Rights Act was a minor reform that did little to solve the institutional racism and white priviledge granted by the system. African-Americans were becoming increasingly militant and radical in their calls for change so a tiny concession like the Civil Rights Act was important to keep the majority from moving towards more radical means.

However, Ron Paul attacked the act in itself as "a violation of the right of corporations on who they can hire", showing that he doesn't support federal regulation of discriminatory hiring practices. The "right of property" has been the condition of every society where one man dominates over another, from feudal to capitalist property. But somehow it is "reverse racism" to violate this "sacred right" to counteract the continued and historical racism blacks have faced in the social structure.

I'll basically put it like SanPatricios put it, Ron Paul turned the "niggers are taking our jobs" to "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."

My opinion is that blacks and other minorities already had those rights, but were being denied.  The Constitution states All men are created equal, but corrupt and racist interpretation was the problem.  If the founders' intent was a "white only" constitution then they would have written it as such.  Jim Crow laws and forced segragation were unconstitutional to begin with.  The Federal Gov. through the Constitution already had the authority to enforce what the Civil Rights Act claims to have granted.  So, it was only symbolic.

So the problem with the Civil Rights Act is that it was only symbolic but you yourself have just acknowledged that the Constitution itself has only been symbolic because racism in the social structure continues regardless of the interpretation. And if the Civil Rights Act was largely symbolic of an already "granted Constitutional right" then why did Ron fail to commemorate it since the law at least supposedly represented the Constitution. The Consitution only initially granted whites with a certain amount of property to vote so stop romanticizing it as if it did not reflect the general values of white aristocratic society at the time.

Do you all really think that this country could revert to those days and laws if Ron Paul was elected?  I don't and I won't let it, I would die first.
I won't be subservient to anyone including government.

The problem is this problem is not historical, white priviledge and racism in the social structure continue to exist in full force. Ron will only exacerbate this problem by eliminating slight reforms that try to soften the blow against institutional discrimination.

[Godfather of Soul]

The constitution also said that blacks were 3/5 of a human being.

[The Wiseman]

Check yo history too

"Jefferson's reference to the role of the British Crown in the continuance of slavery in Virginia is significant. Virginia, as a British colony, was subject to the laws of Great Britain, and those laws, executed by order of King George III, prevented every attempt to end slavery in America or in any British colony. The specific law which the Crown invoked to strike down the attempts of the Colonies to free slaves had been passed in 1766 (three years before Jefferson's election to office and his first efforts to end slavery), and declared:

Be it declared by the King's most Excellent Majesty . . . that the said Colonies and plantations in America have been, are, and of right ought to be, subordinate unto and dependent upon the Imperial Crown and Parliament of Great Britain; and that the King's Majesty . . . had, hath, and of right ought to have, full power and authority to make laws and statutes of sufficient force and validity to bind the Colonies and people of America, subjects of the crown of Great Britain, in all cases whatsoever. And be it further declared and enacted by the authority aforesaid that all resolution, votes, orders, and proceedings whereby the power and authority of the Parliament of Great Britain to make laws and statutes . . . is denied, or drawn into question, are, and are hereby declared to be, utterly null and void to all intents and purposes whatsoever.  

This law gave to the Crown the unilateral and unambiguous power to strike down any and all American laws on any subject whatsoever.

Significantly, prior to the American Revolution some of the Colonies had voted to end slavery in their State, but those State laws had been struck down by the King.  This inability of individual Colonies to abolish slavery, even when they wished to do so, had caused Thomas Jefferson to include in the Declaration of Independence a listing of this grievance as one of the reasons propelling America to separate from Great Britain."

I guess the continued slavery of the next 82 years following the revolution were the effects of the King's hand working from afar and beyond the grave in the minds of the "innocent Americans" lol Not that the British were innocent in the slave trade but then neither was any Western nation including the American colonies that were mere reflections of their European parents. To try to act as if the colonies had some sort of insight or moral high ground to want to abolish slavery at the time flies in the face of all evidence to the contrary. The Constitution recognized that all humans were equal but the Founding Fathers did not consider black slaves and Native Americans to fit the definition of "human". The Constitution was a doctrine for white property owners created and signed by 50 unelected slave-owning aristocrats who feared the "irrationality of the mob" in matters of their privilege. It was relatively conservative at the time of its creation compared to many more radical enlightenment values like those of Tom Paine.

http://www.historyisaweapon.com/defcon1/zinnkin5.html

  With black slaves 25 percent of the population (and in some counties 50 percent), fear of slave revolts grew. George Washington had turned down the requests of blacks, seeking freedom, to fight in the Revolutionary army. So when the British military commander in Virginia, Lord Dunmore, promised freedom to Virginia slaves who joined his forces, this created consternation. A report from one Maryland county worried about poor whites encouraging slave runaways:

The insolence of the Negroes in this county is come to such a height, that we are under a necessity of disarming them which we affected on Saturday last. We took about eighty guns, some bayonets, swords, etc. The malicious and imprudent speeches of some among the lower classes of whites have induced them to believe that their freedom depended on the success of the King's troops. We cannot therefore be too vigilant nor too rigorous with those who promote and encourage this disposition in our slaves.

http://www.nathanielturner.com/foundingmythspatrioticpast.htm

First, George Washington regarded the presence of slaves in the Continental Army as a total embarrassment, and he did everything in his power to keep them out. One week after assuming command, he ordered that no “stroller, negro, or vagabond” be allowed to enlist.

The British Army was much more welcoming. Four months after Washington’s decree, the royal governor of Virginia, Lord Dunmore, offered freedom to all slaves who left their masters and fought against the patriots. Over the course of the war, tens of thousands of slaves fled to the British in search of their freedom, including at least 20 men and women enslaved to George Washington.

Next, even if Washington had wanted to enlist slaves, he never would have offered them freedom for only one year of service. He insisted on longer enlistments, three years or the duration of the war. Had he promised freedom in return for such a short term, his recruiting officers would have been instantly overwhelmed, and the Continental Army would have become predominantly black.

Further, who would have compensated the masters? To seize “property” from patriotic slave owners without compensation was unthinkable—but how could Congress afford to pay for slaves when it couldn’t even afford enough food to sustain the soldiers it had?

Plus, Washington was simply not the one to do the recruiting. That was left to the individual states. Later in the war some states did permit slaves to serve as substitutes for whites who had been drafted, but even so, not all of these were granted freedom in the end. In South Carolina, the setting for The Patriot, John Laurens, the son of the president of Congress, proposed arming some slaves to fight alongside the patriots, but Washington opposed the idea, and the South Carolina government rejected it outright.

This is not to say South Carolina did not make use of slaves to bolster the army. To induce whites to enlist, Southern states offered special bounties—not to slaves, but of slaves. Near the end of the war, when manpower was scarce, any white who signed on would receive a special bonus of one slave.

The worst myth propagated in The Patriot is that slaves were so devoted to their masters that they would risk their lives on the battlefield. The truth is, slaves tried to use the Revolutionary War in whatever way they could to gain their own freedom. A few enslaved African-Americans in the North managed to bargain for their freedom by fighting for the patriots; a vastly greater number in the South thought their prospects were better with the British. In either case, slaves struggled to achieve freedom from a tyranny far more acute than “taxation without representation.”

http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=99

Research...Read...then think for yourself.  Not disrespecting,  there is just a lot of misinformation out there.

http://www.wallbuilders.com/ABTOverview.asp

WallBuilders is an organization dedicated to presenting America's forgotten history and heroes, with an emphasis on the moral, religious, and constitutional foundation on which America was built-a foundation which, in recent years, has been seriously attacked and undermined. In accord with what was so accurately stated by George Washington, we believe that "the propitious [favorable] smiles of heaven can never be expected on a nation which disregards the eternal rules of order and right which heaven itself has ordained."

Hahahaha Man you far-right libertarians and paleo-conservatives are funny talking about the "God-ordained" American heritage. All these nationalist and spiritualist concepts combined into little phrases are enough to make any true "patriotic" American's heart melt.

[Jihad]

The constitution also said that blacks were 3/5 of a human being.

And 2/5 of that was just their penis.

[LastNameForgotten]

The constitution also said that blacks were 3/5 of a human being.

GOS is right on that statement and the 3/5 exception was largely motivated in part because congressmen from slaving holding states wanted to use their slave population as a means to gain more seats in Congress. If they could have gain more seats without having to acknowledge their slave population as even partly human, then I believe they would have done so.

I am getting sick of people using the argument about the intent of the founding fathers about how laws should be interpret by their standards. The founding fathers are dead and it is time that the people actually running the country forge their own path of governance. Most of the founding fathers were slave owners and that shows more about their feelings towards blacks, than the words that were written in the constitution.

[San Patricio]

I'll basically put it like SanPatricios put it, Ron Paul turned the "niggers are taking our jobs" to "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."

That was a ballin ass conversation