Tuesday, May 17, 2011
Ron Paul, Bigoted Ideologue
This is a post by contributing writer, Stephen Jones, of Las Cruces.
On Friday, Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul told Chris Mathews in an MSNBC interview that he would not have voted in favor of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, if he were a member of Congress at the time of its passage. Paul told Matthews that while he thought Jim Crow laws were illegal, he would have opposed the Civil Rights Act "because of property rights."
Paul's anti-civil rights foray on Friday is sadly not his first. On June 4, 2004, on the 40th Anniversary of passage of the landmark Civil Rights Act, Paul issued an angry denunciation on the floor of the House. "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," Paul said. Paul's was the only dissenting vote against the House resolution commemorating passage of the Civil Rights Act.
It would be comforting to disregard Ron Paul's frequent forays into denouncing civil rights legislation as just so much fuzzy-thinking of a libertarian ideologue, but nothing could be farther from the truth. Lurking not too far below the surface is Ron Paul's heritage of bigoted speech.
Ron Paul's history of racism dates back decades, and bigoted language has been a frequent topic of his Congressional newsletter. "Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty and the end of welfare and affirmative action," he wrote in one newsletter. "We are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, it is hardly irrational. Black men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings and burglaries all out of proportion to their numbers." Ron Paul issued this opinion in another, "Boy, it sure burns me to have a national holiday for that pro-communist philanderer, Martin Luther King. I voted against this outrage time and time again as a Congressmen [sic]. What an infamy that Ronald Reagan approved it! We can thank him for our annual Hate Whitey Day." Ron Paul's racist diatribes date back decades.
In 1996 the Houston Chronicle revealed this pattern of hate-speech in Paul's writing. In one newsletter article, the Chronicle noted, Ron Paul claimed that 85 percent of all black men in the District of Columbia were criminals. Paul wrote, "Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the 'criminal justice system,' I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal," Paul said.
When Ron Paul's racist newsletters came to light nationally four years ago, the Texas Congressman claimed the articles were "ghostwritten" by some unnamed author and did not reflect his "true opinions." The identity of any "ghostwriter" was never revealed. On Friday, Ron Paul's pattern of racism emerged once again in the false guise of some sort of "deeply-held" libertarian ideology.
As an announced candidate for the Republican nomination, it's time to question Ron Paul's motives, and belief-system, once again.
To see more posts by Stephen, visit our archive.
If you are going to post this you in fairness need to watch the entire article not the heavily edited clip thinkprogress is circulating. Ron Paul isn't bigoted, he says repeatedly he would have ended Jim Crow laws. He thinks our history is of tyranny with a brief experiment in liberty and we are blowing it. He thinks liberty isn't disgusting just because in history you can find examples of places where people used liberty to do disgusting things.
Here is the FULL interview. Those who are fair minded will want to see it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OPwcGKmBsaw
Posted by: KR | May 17, 2011 11:21:03 AM
Please sir, You wish it was as easy as that.
The important thing for everyone to remember is the difference between Natural Rights (aka. God given Unalienabl¬e Rights) and Civil Rights. The former, no man has the lawful right to transgress¬. That which your creator gave you only he can take away. Civil Rights on the other hand, are given by government¬s, by men, and that which man can grant to another man he can take away. Civil Rights also imply that some posses the right to grant rights, while others do not. What does this suggest about the condition of those who are only granted rights by other men? That they are subordinat¬es, proverbial slaves to those who grant them Civil Rights.
The question must be asked: If human beings have Unalienabl¬e God given rights why do they need Civil Rights, considerin¬g that Unalienabl¬e Rights, by there very nature, supersede all others?
So I suspect that it's all about control. "Let us deny people their Unalienabl¬e Rights so that we can substitute Civil Rights for them instead. For Civil Rights are ours to grant and revoke as we see fit, control those who would speak or act not as we desire, but Unalienabl¬e Rights are only the province of our Creator and make other men our equal in freedom and liberty."
Constitutionally, legislatively, and morally, Ron Paul has no equal. His 22 year voting record speaks for itself. The World is watching. Ron Paul for President in 2012.
ttp://www.issues2000.org/tx/Ron_Paul.htm The facts speak for themselves
Posted by: George Washington | May 17, 2011 12:07:52 PM
Well "George," perhaps you might want to learn the difference between the Declaration of Independence and the actual governing document of the nation, which is the U.S. Constitution, and which reads, "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." and, "Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."
Posted by: Stephen Jones | May 17, 2011 2:39:40 PM
Little Georgie and KR have proven, once again, that libertarians be a profoundly stupid breed of people.
Posted by: thelonius | May 17, 2011 3:00:17 PM
God has nothing to do with the US of A and its constitution. It's called separation of church and state. If you want to talk about god given rights, go to church.
Ron Paul and others of his ilk have long used "states' rights" and other excuses as shield for their racism. It's nothing new.
Posted by: Linda | May 17, 2011 6:01:36 PM
GW forgets that these are laws for governing a society. In a free society, "your freedom ends where my nose begins." Similarly, all other interactions between citizen and citizen can be, and should be, governed by law for the benefit of the society as a whole.
Now if you want to defend your right to commit suicide, that might be considered to be a different case, as long as you waive all rights to free medical care if you botch the job.
Posted by: Ellen Wedum | May 19, 2011 8:59:34 AM