"The Trouble With the ‘64 Civil Rights Act"    -by RON PAUL

"On June 4, 2004, Congress hailed the 40th anniversary of the 1964 Act. Only the heroic Ron Paul dissented. Here are his comments."

-Lew Rockwell

~ “heroic?”  

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.”

Me- First of all, there was no “forced integration” but your choice of words says a lot. Maybe you forgot but people were fighting for this “forced integration” because they had been suffering through the hell of “forced discrimination”. They were “forced” to use separate benches and “forced” to sit in the back of the bus. Relations absolutely did improve but with social conditions, such as poverty and the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr, it took some time. What is wring with you? How can someone claim he’s not racist because he wants to end the “war on drugs” yet he opposes the Civil Rights Act? Right..

"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.

Me- This is hilarious for a few reasons. The Civil Rights Act had no effect of private property owners whatsoever. Desegregation laws allowed people on public property  including schools, hotels, and restaurants. Nothing about having to share private property. It sounds like you’re really just against Affirmative Action, but you’re skirting around it as per usual. So in a nutshell, you oppose Civil Rights because it infringes on your right to discriminate, and property rights for "those whose actions decent people find abhorrent" are a better way to “maintain a free society” then to actually give people freedom and protect their rights.. Oh. This is why you have such a huge white supremacist fan base p.s.he intended purpose of Affirmative Action is to

"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.”

Me- We get it. You are obsessive about the federal government and you know what the framers of the Constitution “intended” because you’re psychic. Got it.

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”

Me- Again, you are so full of it! The Civil Rights Act did nothing to violate any laws and it protects people from discrimination. You seem to have a huge problem with this which concerns me. No the bureaucrats and judges cannot read minds, but hey, neither can you asshole! They don’t need to be able to read minds to investigate a crime. Ask Randy Gray or Don Black about the times they were arrested for hate crimes. .

"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.”

Me- Have I mentioned how full of shit you are? HOW DO YOU THINK PUBLIC ATTITUDES AND EFFORTS WERE INFLUENCE??? pfft..

"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”.

Me- And, fuck you very much Ronald. No one wants a “color-blind” society. It’s called “diversity.” This was the most flawed argument I’ve ever read. Furthermore, eat a dick. What’s wrong with you?? Take a Xanex or something and calm the fuck down.



36 notes