iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Ron Paul: Civil Rights Act Of 1964 'Destroyed' Privacy

Ron Paul

First Posted: 01/01/2012 3:36 pm Updated: 01/02/2012 7:26 am

WASHINGTON -- Despite recent accusations of racism and homophobia, Republican presidential candidate Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) stuck to his libertarian principles on Sunday, criticizing the historic Civil Rights Act of 1964 because it "undermine[d] the concept of liberty" and "destroyed the principle of private property and private choices."

"If you try to improve relationships by forcing and telling people what they can't do, and you ignore and undermine the principles of liberty, then the government can come into our bedrooms," Paul told Candy Crowley on CNN's "State of the Union." "And that's exactly what has happened. Look at what's happened with the PATRIOT Act. They can come into our houses, our bedrooms our businesses ... And it was started back then."

The Civil Rights Act repealed the notorious Jim Crow laws; forced schools, bathrooms and buses to desegregate; and banned employment discrimination. Although Paul was not around to weigh in on the landmark legislation at the time, he had the chance to cast a symbolic vote against it in 2004, when the House of Representatives took up a resolution "recognizing and honoring the 40th anniversary of congressional passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964." Paul was the only member who voted "no."

Paul explained that while he supports the fact that the legislation repealed the notorious Jim Crow laws, which forced racial segregation, he believes it is the government, not the people, that causes racial tensions by passing overreaching laws that institutionalize slavery and segregation. Today's race problems, he said, result from the war on drugs, the flawed U.S. court system and the military.

"The real problem we face today is the discrimination in our court system, the war on drugs. Just think of how biased that is against the minorities," he said. "They go into prison much way out of proportion to their numbers. They get the death penalty out of proportion with their numbers. And if you look at what minorities suffer in ordinary wars, whether there's a draft or no draft, they suffer much out of proposition. So those are the kind of discrimination that have to be dealt with, but you don't ever want to undermine the principle of private property and private choices in order to solve some of these problems."

Paul's comments on how to improve race relations come at an interesting time, following the recent revelation of a series of racist and homophobic newsletters that were published under his name in the 1980s and 1990s. Paul has denounced the newsletters, and he says that although he was the publisher, he didn't write or review any of the offensive comments in them -- only the "economic parts."

"I'm the true civil libertarian when it comes to [race relations], and I think that people ought to, you know, look at my position there, rather than dwelling on eight sentences that I didn't write and didn't authorize and have been, you know, apologetic about," he told ABC's Jake Tapper on Sunday. "Because it shouldn't have been there, and it was terrible stuff."

FOLLOW HUFFPOST POLITICS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Hill newsletter!
WASHINGTON -- Despite recent accusations of racism and homophobia, Republican presidential candidate Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) stuck to his libertarian principles on Sunday, criticizing the historic Civ...
WASHINGTON -- Despite recent accusations of racism and homophobia, Republican presidential candidate Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) stuck to his libertarian principles on Sunday, criticizing the historic Civ...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 14,266
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Post Comment Preview Comment
To reply to a Comment: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to.
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (207 total)
06:54 AM on 04/23/2013
A co-worker of mine’s told me to go to www.prophetofgoddess.com because I went to some other spell caster’s and nothing worked to get my boyfriend back. I felt all was lost till I emailed him on spells@prophetofgoddess.com, and Prophet of GODDESS stepped in after I got a phone consultation from him. He saw the problem and told me when things fell apart. I had him to cast the Love and Return Spell since things were blocking my boyfriend to come to me and after the spells was casted, my boyfriend came back to me. I'm a woman of my word, so I had to spread the news to let others know who helped me.
01:23 PM on 08/11/2012
"The Civil Rights Act repealed the notorious Jim Crow laws;” for example:
“1956: Public Accommodations
All public parks, recreation centers, playgrounds, etc. were required to be segregated.
1956: Public Carrier
All forms of public transportation were to be segregated.
1957: Education
All public schools were required to be racially segregated.
1960: Voting Rights
The races of all candidates were to be written on the ballots.

BUT THAT IS NOT ALL IT DID!!!

Dr. Paul is in favor of repealing these laws, so why didn’t congress just sign a bill that repealed all Jim Crow laws? It would have been that simple. well, just like the Patriot act didn’t have much to do with patriots. The Civil Rights Act, of 1964 didn’t have much to do with equal rights. What it did do according to Dr. Paul is “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 user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
Iris Silver
Coincidence or synchronicity? You decide.
09:40 PM on 07/06/2012
Perhaps Paul is forgetting the fact that government came into our bedrooms waaaaay before the Civil Rights Act. Think sodomy laws and laws forbidding interracial marriage. What a weird, untrue thing to say about the Civil Rights Act that it brought government into our bedrooms.
06:04 PM on 04/10/2012
It's amazing to me that he can talk about fear of govt in our bedrooms, while maintaining an anti--choice, anti-contraception position. How does privacy only apply to business decisions but not to women's bodies? And he calls is "liberty"! Mind-boggling. I used to call myself a Libertarian. Now I have to say "Progressive Libertarian" just so people don't take me for a Ron-Paul-er.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Brandon Bredda
12:12 PM on 12/25/2012
Although he does not agree with abortion, he believes it is up to the states(and the people of those states) to write their own laws on the subject matter. He does not believe it should be done at the federal level.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Brandon Bredda
12:12 PM on 12/25/2012
Also he is not against contraception.
12:17 PM on 01/16/2012
I understand this philosophy, but if it's his genuine stance, he definitely needs to re-evaluate it. He is correct in the fact that you cannot force peaceful relations upon people, and he is even more correct about the rampant racism and intolerance throughout the judicial system. All you have to do is read one book on urban sociology to understand that in a way, our class system is designed to keep people who live in certain areas of cities involved in a depressed, unlawful lifestyle.
However, the Civil Rights Act was, in my opinion, the best way possible to force people into an eventual more peaceful mindset in terms of racial relations. Sure, defacto segregation still exists, and racism is far from dead, but if we weren't forced into social situations with each other every day, if you could lawfully exclude a certain race or religion from your shop, imagine how much stronger those prejudices would grow had you never had the opportunity of interaction to dispel such ideas and prejudices. If people can bring their chihuahuas into certain stores in their handbags peacefully, I think we can handle being "forced" into interactions with fellow human beings who happen to have been born with a different skin tone. And if we can't, or have something that negative to say about such laws, then we clearly don't deserve/aren't capable of a government that can do any better than the one we've already got with the laws it's already implemented.
11:55 AM on 01/16/2012
People like this keep saying we shouldn't need to legislate these things because we can trust that there will be enough people to act right to balance out those that don't, but the truth is we do because we can't. People are selfish, and we need to have these laws (which are very basic in the grand scheme of things) because otherwise every person will only be looking out for their own self-interests. Comparing the Civil Rights Act to the Patriot Act and laws that "come into our bedrooms" is asinine, especially considering who is pushing the latter two. I'm in favor of carving out a big piece of the wastelands and creating a "state" where all these libertarian types can go buck-wild with their personal responsibility. It would be Lord of the Flies inside of a month.
02:41 PM on 01/11/2012
Okay, so if Mr. Paul is all about the principle of "private choices," he should be for abortion rights and gay marriage...
photo
MovieGuy2010
You can't fight in here..this is the war room!
04:40 PM on 01/13/2012
He waffles there, and kicks it to the states....

Allows him to play both ends against the middle, but it sure isn't very libertarian of him?

Ayn Rand would not approve, that's for sure...She didn't play this "It's OK if the states do it" game...
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
krayonc
Travel is fatal to prejudice & bigotry.
02:39 AM on 01/18/2012
He is...do what you want as long as you don't hurt anybody else. He voted for the repeal of "don't ask don't tell". Does he get a little nervous around some LGBTs? lol...probably, but he's doesn't try to tell anybody how to live and he doesn't vote to take away anybody's rights. I wouldn't vote for him if I thought he was a right restricting homophobe. As a matter of fact, if more political figures follow his example, we could get the states to repeal their laws against same sex marriages as well. Getting rid of the Fed lobbyists is the key.

On the abortion issue... I've been pro-choice my whole life but Paul talks about seeing a late pregnancy abortion that makes me rethink my position. It breathed, it cried, and they had to put it in a bucket & ignore it because it was aborted...nobody had the right to save it and the aborted baby didn't have the right to live. Pretty messed up. I don't think I could have witnessed that & not been affected by it either.

http://www.lifenews.com/2011/12/13/ron-paul-pro-life-but-questioned-on-states-rights-approach/
06:12 PM on 04/10/2012
I'm sorry but I just don't believe this story. First of all, a late term abortion is different from an early term and is usually only done when there are major complications. But putting a live baby in a bucket - really? I dont think any hospital would do that. Wouldnt it be dead by the time it came out? They wouldn't just leave it to die. This story just sounds like some pro-life theatrics to me. That said, I do believe late term abortions should be done in the most humane way possible.
06:23 PM on 04/10/2012
"In medical use, the word "feticide" is used simply to mean causing the death of the fetus, usually prior to some form of abortion. The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists recommends feticide be performed "before medical abortion after 21 weeks and 6 days of gestation to ensure that there is no risk of a live birth"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intact_dilation_and_extraction
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
RCnDC
If U Dont Live Ur Life Being Born, U Live It Dying
08:10 PM on 01/10/2012
his followers are sooo foolish if they don't listen closely to all of these "liberty" statements that paul makes.... he wants zero government, or frankly law and order, so there is no one to ensure individual freedoms are not trampled on by all of the bigots of society.. what he really means here is that he believes the people who burned crosses and other members of society who wore white sheets while they killed, their freedoms and privacy were destroyed when the big bad government came in and started to police and enforce civil rights.. it's shocking to see the number of people who don't really peel back the onion with this guy.. his voting record and newsletters make it clear where he stands on this issue..
wsdave
Abusive or Insulting? I won't be responding.
12:51 PM on 01/11/2012
Lies. Outright lies.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
LostDreamz
12:23 PM on 01/19/2012
You hit the nail dead on the head!!! He IS saying that the government took away the rights of the bigots. If they were so right in what they were doing then, why did they have to wear hoods? But, most won't understand that. We have a joke in the south. You can always tell who is Klan because they're wearing the flag pins. View the footage of that time. He's not for individual freedoms, he's for freedoms he thinks will ultimately wipe certain groups out in this nation, like his stance on legalizing all drugs. He doesn't realize that more people die from prescription overdoses everyday.
04:03 PM on 02/08/2012
Right on! The unalienable right to free association for all! Except bigots! The Constitution was clearly not intended to protect the rights of bigots! Or people of religions we don't like! Or races we don't like!

Oh wait..

Yes, like your right to free speech even when we do not approve, your right to associate with others that we do not approve of, or not to associate in ways we do not approve is still your right.

Your rights are pretty much only meaningfully protected when you are doing things which others may vehemently disapprove. Like drugs, homosexuality, yes, even bigotry. Just as bigots vehemently disapproved of blacks sitting at the front of a bus and PASSED LAWS against it, which was a violation of the rights of blacks, so to is PASSING LAWS to force bigots to associate with blacks. Sorry but that's reality.

But Paul is also right of the economics. Jim Crow laws were passed in the first place because businesses that would hire harder working black labor, or served black customers OUTCOMPETED businesses with racist policies. So they had to follow suit or pass unjust Jim Crow laws. We know what they did. The laws allowed them to remain bigots with no economic cost. That economic cost is the natural demise of bigotry.

The way to end injustice is to end it. Not replace it with a different injustice.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Binea
Only a fool denies she is a fool, I am no fool
11:16 AM on 01/08/2012
"If you try to improve relationships by forcing and telling people what they can't do, and you ignore and undermine the principles of liberty, then the government can come into our bedrooms," Paul told Candy Crowley on CNN's "State of the Union." "And that's exactly what has happened. Look at what's happened with the PATRIOT Act. They can come into our houses, our bedrooms our businesses ... And it was started back then."

THIS is NOT bigotry..it is a legitimate political philosophical argument..while he does NOT want Jim Crow,he does point out the harm it did to private property rights. This is a conversation I'd like two constitutional scholars Ron Paul and Obama or Mellissa Harris perry to have ..
Instead of folks pointing to him and calling him a RACIST.
Paul is right about the institutionalized racism,just as he was right about fanny and Freddy ( which DID target minorities)
HE DESRVES the benefit of doubt,and deserves a debate with one of the two above ( the NAACP former president NELSON LINDER by his side,since he said he UNDERSTANDS what Paul is saying and knows he is NOT a racist )
Racist charges against anyone who dares point out a Problem will only keep racial tensions going forever.

the LEFT media uses this to Claim he is a Racist,and then add on the newsletters that he DID NOT WRITE or EDIT.
Paul deserves a fair debate without the hysterics. WE deserve a fair debate.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
KJBunn
04:30 PM on 01/11/2012
Yeah, but here's the thing... The junk that was written in his newsletters back in the 70s says a lot. How in the heck did those get published if he knew nothing about them? I don't believe for one second that not only did he know about them, he approved them. And even if those weren't his thoughts then, honestly, if he couldn't control what was typed up in a simple newsletter what makes you think he could handle being President now? He needs to own that stuff.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Binea
Only a fool denies she is a fool, I am no fool
05:27 PM on 01/11/2012
read a bit and watch some video. look at all the evidence proving he is NOTguilty. he already apologized and said that he is at fault for not paying attention to the newsletters. compare his ONE mistake to all the times he has paid attention to important things and accurately predicted things. go here for rules of my challenge Media will not show the stuff proving him innocent.

first where he is coming from PHILOSOPHICALLY
then
http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo137.html

listen to Nelson Linder former president of Austin NAACP who knew Paul for over 20 years and said he knows him to have fought against racism.

http://forum.sbrforum.com/politics-economics/1466791-texas-naacp-president-nelson-linder-defends-ron-paul.html
Then consider that he is the only one still talking about institutionalized racism,and how to end it, While you read THIS.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul68.html

voted yes for MLK holiday in 1979

He has NEVER voted to raise congressional pay.

He has NEVER taken a government-paid junket.

He has NEVER voted to increase the power of the executive branch.

He voted AGAINST the Patriot Act.

He voted AGAINST regulating the Internet.

He voted AGAINST the Iraq war.

He DOES NOT participate in the lucrative congressional pension program.

He returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the U.S. treasury every year.

does THAT look like a man who would allow racist garbage for MONEY ?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Binea
Only a fool denies she is a fool, I am no fool
05:30 PM on 01/11/2012
part 2

This is done by a REAL investigative reporter NOT out to smear him

http://ronpaulflix.com/2012/01/ben-swanns-reality-check-the-story-behind-the-ron-paul-newsletters-jan-4-2012/

then read this
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread789712/pg1
and this
http://www.dailypaul.com/194188/the-ron-paul-newsletters-a-ghost-writers-perspective-and-open-letter-to-james-kirchick

then this

http://www.aclu.org/blog/tag/NDAA

part 1
http://www.dailypaul.com/194188/the-ron-paul-newsletters-a-ghost-writers-perspective-and-open-letter-to-james-kirchick

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread789712/pg1

watch this in depth interview from 1988 " The Power Elite "

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0735005ItY

Now he has predicted many things in the economy and with the stomping of our rights
and all of them have come to pass. You'd think the repubs would praise him huh ?

The media are in bed with the political parties who are in bed with every corrupt corp out there.
Ron Paul's record is one that shows complete honesty,integrity,consistency..these news letters are are they have to smear him with. Sean Hannity is the one angrily asking Bill Bennent why no one had used the newsletters to stop pual ..he did it a few days before the media feeding frenzy of accusations and "surmising on his guilt" always of course concluding he was guilty.
the media took Ron Paul's explanation put a biased interpretation to it .
11:56 AM on 01/16/2012
Pointing out someone is racist does not perpetuate racism. Racists perpetuate racism.
Charles W Noble
Reason with eachother
05:59 PM on 01/04/2012
Today's race problems, he said, result from the war on drugs, the flawed U.S. court system and the military.
"The real problem we face today is the discrimination in our court system, the war on drugs. Just think of how biased that is against the minorities," he said. "They go into prison much way out of proportion to their numbers. They get the death penalty out of proportion with their numbers. And if you look at what minorities suffer in ordinary wars, whether there's a draft or no draft, they suffer much out of proposition. So those are the kind of discrimination that have to be dealt with, but you don't ever want to undermine the principle of private property and private choices in order to solve some of these problems." I agree with most of what he's saying. He certainly sounds reasonable.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Alex Croley
One Nation, Indivisible, for Liberty and Justice f
04:41 PM on 01/04/2012
Paul and other 'small government' advocates love to do to the regulations that protect us, and our rights, what the Republicans like to do to the poor: Isolate and vilify. Make the government seem seperate from the people as a whole (which is sorta tough because we elect these people), make government seem like a bad idea (which again is representive of our *collective* will), and say that government is evil (which is like shooting the country in the foot because it helps to run the country). After considering the words, and the background that Ron Paul comes from, I have to say that I like a fully functioning government and as a citizen will vote people who share that interest.

That's right, I love my Government warts and all, because it represents my Country, warts and all.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
blissfulmitch
09:57 PM on 01/05/2012
A-friggin'-men.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Binea
Only a fool denies she is a fool, I am no fool
11:18 AM on 01/08/2012
The NDAA Bill has just made all civil rights MOOT
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
UberdanSounds
I make music(al), funnies.
04:32 PM on 01/04/2012
I have to agree w/Ron Paul. Look at the racial situation in this country. Go to LA sometime & you will see just how segregated it is. You have Chinatown, Koreatown, Little Armenia, Little Ethiopia, etc. I don't think these Civil Rights laws helped that much at all. If anything, it made people resent other races & the govt even more. That is what he is talking about, not forcing your beliefs & laws down each others throats. You know the way? It's the same argument for us 'spreading Democracy' around the world.

Every time he speaks of the inequalities of the prison/court system, drug laws, military, he gets crickets******?????. Logic does not compute in most Americans' brains. Over fluoridated, sugar & fat saturated w/tv, internet, cell phones, & games. The "Patriot Act" was written years before 9/11 so chew on that.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
onionboy
Blessed are the Cheese Makers
03:41 PM on 01/04/2012
"forcing and telling people what they can't do"

Actually, the Jim Crow laws (which were overturned by the Civil Rights Act) DID force people to impose limits on their private property. Not just people of color but all people. They forbade opening desegregated restaurants, hotels, etc. Why doesn't he argue against that imposition on civil liberty and freedom? Why weren't those business owners allowed to serve everyone they wanted?
02:33 PM on 01/10/2012
He does ague against that imposition. He's said it many, many times. Even wrote a chapter about it in one of his numerous books. You should learn more about his positions before making a stand.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
onionboy
Blessed are the Cheese Makers
05:55 PM on 01/10/2012
But that is exactly what his proposed legislation would allow. I'll pay closer attention to that writing (which can adversely affect me and mine) than I will to a book he's trying to sell.
02:34 PM on 01/10/2012
In fact, it even says it in THIS article: "Paul explained that while he supports the fact that the legislation repealed the notorious Jim Crow laws, which forced racial segregation..."
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
onionboy
Blessed are the Cheese Makers
05:57 PM on 01/10/2012
Yet the legislation he put forward would allow just that. Great....he says something that sounds good, but what did he legislate? Just the opposite. I can get that from any of the GOP nominees.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
03:35 PM on 01/04/2012
Is Libertarianism Fundamentally Racist?

The most fevered opponents of civil rights in the 1950s and 1960s – and, for that matter, the most fervent defenders of slavery a century before – also usually made their case in in process terms rather than racist ones.

They stood for the rights of the individual, or the rights of the states, against the federal Goliath. I am sure Paul’s motives derive from ideological fervor rather than a conscious desire to oppress minorities. But the relationship between the abstract principles of his worldview and the ugly racism with which it has so frequently been expressed is hardly coincidental.

[I]n the absence of government protection, white males, acting solely through their exercise of freedom of contract and association, have historically proven quite capable of erecting what any sane observer would recognize as actual impediments to the freedom of minorities and women.

The Dish

And boy would they love to go back to the good ole days when you could disciminate.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Binea
Only a fool denies she is a fool, I am no fool
11:20 AM on 01/08/2012
BS..are African Americans the BORG now ?

exas Congressman and presidential candidate Ron Paul is not a racist and is being smeared as one because he is a clear threat to the political establishment, says Nelson Linder, Austin president of the NAACP.

Speaking out against the charges when they first surfaced during the last Republican primary in 2007, Linder said he has personally known Paul for 20 years and heard him speak out against police oppression in minority communities, racial biases in mandatory drug sentencing, and favorably about late civil rights leader Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

part 1
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Binea
Only a fool denies she is a fool, I am no fool
11:24 AM on 01/08/2012
part 2

“Knowing Ron Paul’s intent, I think he is trying to improve this country but I think also, when you talk about the Constitution and you constantly criticize the federal government versus state I think a lot of folks are going to misconstrue that [....] so I think it’s very easy for folks who want to to take his position out of context and that’s what I’m hearing,” Linder told talk radio host Alex Jones during an interview on January 13, 2008.

“Knowing Ron Paul and having talked to him, I think he’s a very fair guy I just think that a lot of folks do not understand the Libertarian platform,” he added.

“I’ve read Ron Paul’s whole philosophy, I also understand what he’s saying from a political standpoint and why people are attacking him,” said Linder.

“If you scare the folks that have the money, they’re going to attack you and they’re going to take it out of context,” he added.

“What he’s saying is really really threatening the powers that be and that’s what they fear,” concluded the NAACP President.

Linder echoed his statements during another interview during the same time, with Texas libertarian radio host Scott Horton.

“There are quite a few folks who don’t understand the libertarian philosophy,” Linder said, adding the ideology is one African-Americans should more open to.

“The two-party system has failed America,” he said.

part 2
photo
JoeMentia
They hate us for our Free Dumb!
03:32 PM on 01/04/2012
Elven SC umbag