Saturday, November 17, 2007

The Real Reason Why Republican Presidential Candidate Ron Paul Objected To The Civil Rights Act Of 1964

During the past month, Republican Presidential candidate Ron Paul (pictured at left) has come under sustained and savage attack from anti-racist extremists on both sides of the proverbial "aisle". In general, they condemn Paul for being merely "race-neutral"; they demand he join the anti-racist crusade.

An example of this witch-hunt atmosphere manifested itself after the recent revelation that Don Black, the operator of the Stormfront website, had donated $500 to the Ron Paul campaign. In addition, Black has independently procured and posted Ron Paul campaign donation widgets on Stormfront, widgets which are publicly available. Despite the fact that the Ron Paul campaign has clearly stated that they do not share the racial objectives of the white nationalist movement, this is not sufficient for the anti-racists. They imperiously demand that he not only return the $500 donation to Don Black, despite the fact that such an act would constitute a de facto $500 donation to Stormfront, but that he undertake intrusive, invasive, and expensive measures to vet all contributions and contributors for the slightest hint of "racism". They further demand that the Ron Paul campaign take intrusive measures to "block the IPs of so-called racist websites".

One of the leading offenders is the Lone Star Times (LST). I previously exposed them and their agenda HERE; LST launched their first attack on Ron Paul on October 25th, 2007. LST launched subsequent attacks on October 29th, October 30th, and again on November 16th.

Another so-called "kahn-servative" blogger, Adam Holland, launched his own attack on Ron Paul's campaign.

But the left has gotten its licks in, too, led by that Starbucks-swilling Seattle lefty David Neiwert, who launched an attack on Ron Paul on his blog. Another prominent lefty blogger to get her digs in is Citizens Against Hate Co-Director Nicole Nichols, on her Nikki's Nest blog, HERE and HERE.

All of these critics have one thing in common - they're part of the "anti-racist" lobby. While these people are obviously against "racism", they also do not accept non-racism as a legitimate alternative. According to them, being non-racist is no different than being racist. And to promote their philosophy, they not only promote the old SDS principle that "if you are not part of the solution, you are automatically part of the problem", but also the classical Marxist principle of guilt by association, which essentially means that if you walk into a garage, you automatically become a car.

One of the biggest beefs of the anti-racist movement is the fact that Ron Paul has expressed disagreement with the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Most recently, in 2004, Raul reiterated that disagreement, when he was the only member of the U.S. House of Representatives to vote against H.Res 676 in 2004, which was nothing more than a symbolic, cosmetic, "feelgood" resolution rendering ritualized obeisance to the 40th anniversary of Congressional passage of the Civil Right Act of 1964. From the website, here's the text of his House speech on July 3rd, 2004, explaining his opposition to H.Res 676:

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.

His opposition was not based upon race, but on unlawful and unconstitutional expansion of government power. And another valid point: While the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ended legal segregation in several critical areas, it unleashed a host of new challenges. The riots which scarred so many of our cities and which transformed Detroit into a basket case all occurred AFTER passage of the act. The atomization of the black family occurred AFTER passage of the act. The nationwide explosion in black crime also occurred AFTER passage of the act. Ron Paul is correct - the act did indeed increase racial strife, and all the bones we've thrown at blacks - such as affirmative action and the canonization of Dr. Martin Luther King into secular sainthood - not only failed to satiate them, but merely whetted their appetite for more concessions.

Here's what Ron Paul himself has to say about race, straight from his official campaign website:

A nation that once prided itself on a sense of rugged individualism has become uncomfortably obsessed with racial group identities.

The collectivist mindset is at the heart of racism.

Government as an institution is particularly ill-suited to combat bigotry. Bigotry at its essence is a problem of the heart, and we cannot change people's hearts by passing more laws and regulations.

It is the federal government that most divides us by race, class, religion, and gender. Through its taxes, restrictive regulations, corporate subsidies, racial set-asides, and welfare programs, government plays far too large a role in determining who succeeds and who fails. Government "benevolence" crowds out genuine goodwill by institutionalizing group thinking, thus making each group suspicious that others are receiving more of the government loot. This leads to resentment and hostility among us.

Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than as individuals. Racists believe that all individuals who share superficial physical characteristics are alike: as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called "diversity" actually perpetuate racism.

The true antidote to racism is liberty. Liberty means having a limited, constitutional government devoted to the protection of individual rights rather than group claims. Liberty means free-market capitalism, which rewards individual achievement and competence - not skin color, gender, or ethnicity.

In a free society, every citizen gains a sense of himself as an individual, rather than developing a group or victim mentality. This leads to a sense of individual responsibility and personal pride, making skin color irrelevant. Racism will endure until we stop thinking in terms of groups and begin thinking in terms of individual liberty.

And much of the recent growth of the pro-white movement in America is simply a defensive response to the political and economic racism and racial intimidation directed against mainstream whites. Case in point: The national outbreak of "noose" sightings. This didn't happen before Jena. But as a result of the black community's hysterical reaction to Jena, noose sightings have become routine. Is it mass pranking? Or has it become a passive symbol of white resistance? If blacks and mestizos are allowed to be racist, how can we justify not allowing whites to be racist? Ron Paul is right when he says the collectivism breeds more collectivism.

Ron Paul clearly is a non-racist.


  1. I guess that means your white supremacist buddies need to get rid of their herd mentality huh?
    They can no longer look at themselves as white because it causes too much of a problem.
    They must now just consider themselves to be United States citizens. No fruit cup for you...LOL


    Look at the refugee statistics and what these people are entitled to from our government.

    I am trying to spread the word.

    This is as bad as illegal immigration and they can put them in any state. They are destroying our communities.

    I don't think our children are going to have a future in America.