HuffPo: Ron Paul waging "War against Civil Rights"

[rawful]

hxxp://www.huffingtonpost.com/earl-ofari-hutchinson/ron-paul-civil-rights_b_862175.html


GOP presidential candidate Ron Paul still wages war against civil rights. And we really shouldn't be surprised since Paul has repeatedly gotten into hot water nearly every time he opens his mouth about anything that remotely touches on race. But this time Paul sailed past the outer limits with his defiant boast that he would not have voted for the landmark 1964 civil rights bill. That's right the 1964 bill; a bill that's been the law of the land for nearly six decades, and Paul still opposes.

Paul's rap against the bill is just as absurd and tortured as the rap that Southern Democrats and Northern GOP conservatives who bottled the bill up for more than a year in Congress used to pretty up their opposition to it. It violated property rights. Paul, nearly six decades after their efforts failed, tells Chris Matthews, "...I'm for property rights and for state's rights, and therefore I'm a racist, that's just outlandish."

But what else would you call it? The equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment wiped away the bogus claim that property rights trumps racial discrimination a century before Paul and Jim Crow maintenance proponents used this ploy to torpedo the civil rights bill. There's method, though, to Paul's silly and repeated knock of the law. He's now a declared 2012 GOP presidential candidate. And he knows full well that there are legions of frustrated, disgusted, even enraged defrocked GOP backers and purported libertarians that are desperate to have an alternative to the drab, lackluster, and downright zany cast of would be GOP presidential contenders.

Paul gives those desperate for an alternative exactly what they want. That's a candidate who will say anything to tweak the establishment. Paul actually garnered a 49 percent approval rating in the recent AP-GfK Roper Public Affairs and Corporate Communications. That high an approval rating put him far ahead of Minnesota representative Michele Bachmann of Minnesota, former Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, former Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty, Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels, and former Utah Gov. and Ambassador to China Jon Huntsman in the GOP favorability derby.

The cornerstone of his appeal is his view of government and what it should or should not do about civil rights. Paul holds that government should have minimal, or better still, no role in civil rights laws and enforcement. The government passed and enforced civil rights laws, did nothing to solve the country's racial ills, and worse, fueled even more racial polarization, he says. That old, worn, and thoroughly discredited view warms the hearts of the packs of closet bigots that pine for the old days when racial and gender discrimination was the American norm and government did little to protect black and gay rights.

On his campaign website ronpaul2008.com, Paul highlighted this as "Issue: Racism." "Government as an institution is particularly ill-suited to combat bigotry." In other words, the 1954 landmark Supreme Court's Brown vs. Board of education school desegregation decision, the 1964 and 1968 Civil Rights Acts, the 1965 Voting Rights Act, and legions of court decisions and state laws that bar discrimination are worthless. Worse, said Paul, they actually promoted bigotry by dividing Americans into race and class.

Paul was outraged during his short lived presidential bid in 2008 when he was dinged as a racist when the above, as well as embarrassing newsletters that were either written by Paul or authorized by Paul on his sites in the 1990s (along with racially front loaded inflammatory quips that bashed blacks), was cited. The Paul-attributed digs and insults called blacks chronic welfare grifters, thugs, lousy parents, and said they are inherently racist toward whites. Paul vehemently denied that he said any of those things.

The quips appeared in his officially approved newsletters. There is no evidence that he wrote a correction, or issued a clarification. The jury then and now is still out on whether those views truly represent his feelings or not. He loudly protests that he's not a racist now because he has to if he is to have any credibility as a serious presidential contender.

But an anti-civil rights position linked directly to the old property rights canard is another matter. It fits neatly into the stock libertarian argument that the best thing that government can do is stay out of the affairs of private citizens and private business. That the root of America's woes -- bloated spending, soaring deficits, congressional gridlock, crippling energy dependence, massive tax disparities, the drug plague, and even America's wars are the result of top heavy government interference and intrusion in the lives of Americans. Paul also knows that spicing up the horribly distorted Jeffersonian principle of limited government with race is always a good catch all.

It is a surefire way to get the media and public attention, and to get back in the political hunt. Fallen media curiosity Donald Trump used the race tact to masterful effectiveness by recycling the birther craziness about President Obama's birth certificate. It didn't last, but he got his 15 minutes.

Paul will get more than that. Unlike Trump he's a politician who knows how to get and sustain attention. And knocking civil rights when all else fails is always good for that.

[sailingaway]

Thinkprogress did a piece on this and it is in the echo chamber.

You know what? Either they know enough about Ron with his 70% name recognition to bother looking into this, or they don't.

I don't think it will stand, obviously, in the long run. WaPo has to know better about the newletters. He said he never wrote them, and wasn't involved in the daily running of the things, so he didn't even know about those until years later.

[Anti Federalist]

Natural rights > "Civil" rights

[HoosierJayhawk]

They cite the recent Hardball interview, but if anyone watches that interview you can see right through this attack. Plus, imagine a Ron Paul vs. Obama debate when the drug war's cost on minorities is highlighted.

[sailingaway]

They cite the recent Hardball interview, but if anyone watches that interview you can see right through this attack. Plus, imagine a Ron Paul vs. Obama debate when the drug war's cost on minorities is highlighted.

Except there are no debates any more. There are media question and answer periods in the general vicinity of the other candidate.

[KramerDSP]

Boasts? He doesn't even bring it up unless the reporter asks him about it as opposed to asking him about $4 gas, 15 Trillion dollar debts and the endless undeclared wars. LMAO. Ron is the only candidate in either party that would end the war on drugs, which most adversely affects minorities. He's also against the Federal death penalty.

HuffPo is a joke.

Edited to Add - Rand didn't get attacked until the General Election. Ron is already being attacked on day three of the primary season, and no questions are being asked about the wars or the Fed, because they know he's right. As long as we survive this initial onslaught, there is literally nothing left stopping Ron Paul from becoming the 45 th President of the United States.

[ronpaulitician]

They cite the recent Hardball interview, but if anyone watches that interview you can see right through this attack. Plus, imagine a Ron Paul vs. Obama debate when the drug war's cost on minorities is highlighted.
Regarding Paul's stance on the war on drugs:

There not being a Constitutional power for the federal government to wage that war is the cause.
Finally undoing the injustice against minorities that come along with the war on drugs is the effect.

Note that if there was a Constitutional power that grants the federal government the right to wage this war, Paul would likely still fight it in order to end the clear injustice that it perpetrates against minorities. I base that off of his new stance on the federal death penalty, which he is now against because of a clear injustice against certain minorities.

[ronpaulitician]

As long as we survive this initial onslaught, there is literally nothing left stopping Ron Paul from becoming the 45 th President of the United States.
And Ron will be battle tested, ready to properly counter anything they throw at him.

"Congressman Paul..."

"Yeah, I already know what you're going to ask me."

[sailingaway]

Boasts? He doesn't even bring it up unless the reporter asks him about it as opposed to asking him about $4 gas, 15 Trillion dollar debts and the endless undeclared wars. LMAO. Ron is the only candidate in either party that would end the war on drugs, which most adversely affects minorities. He's also against the Federal death penalty.

HuffPo is a joke.

Edited to Add - Rand didn't get attacked until the General Election. Ron is already being attacked on day three of the primary season, and no questions are being asked about the wars or the Fed, because they know he's right. As long as we survive this initial onslaught, there is literally nothing left stopping Ron Paul from becoming the 45 th President of the United States.

He is attracting support from the left as well as the right, I have to assume, and it is scaring thinkprogress to death. At least, that is all I can assume from its nonstop spin and mudslinging....

[terp]

Damn. What color is the sky in that guys world? Almost every statement is false. Even the part about boasting. I don't believe I've ever heard Ron Paul boast about anything.

[aclove]

This is the only thing they can think to do that will head off all of the ammunition Paul has against Obama on the war issue. They're terrified Ron will bring to the forefront of principled liberals' minds the fact that Obama's promises to end the war in Iraq were a complete and total fabrication, along with pretty much everything else he promised to do during the 2008 campaign. They CAN'T allow that to happen without at least trying to distract people with the accusation of racism.

[TNforPaul45]

HuffPo: where any asshole ideologue with a keyboard can and will get published to the front page, no matter the truthfulness or veracity of their statements.

You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villany.

[KramerDSP]

This author is the guy who does the Survivor write up recaps for HuffPo. A real vile piece of work whose hate seeths through every pore of his words.

[nocompromises]

The fact is the government has no right to discriminate against someone do to race or sex, but private individuals have a right to choose how to use their property. If I have a home for rent, and I don't want to lease it to a black man I'm an idiot. However, I would have the right to control my own property and if I don't want to rent my property to someone, let someone come into my business, or sell to someone that is my right!

If we don't have property rights, we have no rights at all. If I am FORCED to rent, sell, or do business with someone then MY RIGHTS are being violated!

[nocompromises]

This is the only thing they can think to do that will head off all of the ammunition Paul has against Obama on the war issue. They're terrified Ron will bring to the forefront of principled liberals' minds the fact that Obama's promises to end the war in Iraq were a complete and total fabrication, along with pretty much everything else he promised to do during the 2008 campaign. They CAN'T allow that to happen without at least trying to distract people with the accusation of racism.

I agree!

[No1ButPaul08]

Six decades eh?

2011
-1964
47

[HOLLYWOOD]

The fact is the government has no right to discriminate against someone do to race or sex, but private individuals have a right to choose how to use their property. If I have a home for rent, and I don't want to lease it to a black man I'm an idiot. However, I would have the right to control my own property and if I don't want to rent my property to someone, let someone come into my business, or sell to someone that is my right!

If we don't have property rights, we have no rights at all. If I am FORCED to rent, sell, or do business with someone then MY RIGHTS are being violated!Just watched Hugh Hefner interview/documentary on the history of PLAYBOY... Great segment when he speaks about his PLAYBOY clubs down in the deep south, especially in New Orleans. He wasn't allow to admit blacks, because of government laws. Good piece how government constantly tried controlling or shutting down PLAYBOY and/or it's employees, etc.

[South Park Fan]

Six decades eh?

2011
-1964
47 I think the chronological inaccuracy matches well with the rest of the article.

[KramerDSP]

The comments are fantastic thus far!

[djfirm]

The fact is the government has no right to discriminate against someone do to race or sex, but private individuals have a right to choose how to use their property. If I have a home for rent, and I don't want to lease it to a black man I'm an idiot. However, I would have the right to control my own property and if I don't want to rent my property to someone, let someone come into my business, or sell to someone that is my right!

If we don't have property rights, we have no rights at all. If I am FORCED to rent, sell, or do business with someone then MY RIGHTS are being violated!

While this train of thought may apply to your private residence others would argue that when you open your property to the public for commerce, you need to abide by certain rules of society.* And at that point in time, equal opportunity and equal protection supercede your private property rights.*



How would some of you counter this arguement?

[McBell]

The irony is how conspiratorial it sounds.

[bb_dg]

On his campaign website ronpaul2008.com, Paul highlighted this as "Issue: Racism." "Government as an institution is particularly ill-suited to combat bigotry." In other words, the 1954 landmark Supreme Court's Brown vs. Board of education school desegregation decision, the 1964 and 1968 Civil Rights Acts, the 1965 Voting Rights Act, and legions of court decisions and state laws that bar discrimination are worthless. Worse, said Paul, they actually promoted bigotry by dividing Americans into race and class.

If Ron Paul saw this, what would he say in response to this?

[Monarchist]

"Now listen here, Mr. Leibowitz, you must let these swastika-brandishing skinheads into your store otherwise you'll be violating their 'civil rights', and we'll have no choice but to come in here and forcibly take your money and property and possibly throw you in jail."

[nocompromises]

I would counter it by saying that if I cannot control who comes into my business or restaurant, then I do not own it at all. It belongs to the government.

You cannot have *some* property rights. You either have total control of your property, or none at all.

If someone does not like that, then they can do business with someone else.

[reardenstone]

While this train of thought may apply to your private residence others would argue that when you open your property to the public for commerce, you need to abide by certain rules of society.* And at that point in time, equal opportunity and equal protection supercede your private property rights.*

How would some of you counter this arguement?


Who decides what time your business can open or close? Who decides what you sell? In some cases the state has oversight, and in many others it is the individual.

It may depend on the location of property. The Augusta National Golf Club and private clubs are allowed to discriminate.

[South Park Fan]

While this train of thought may apply to your private residence others would argue that when you open your property to the public for commerce, you need to abide by certain rules of society.* And at that point in time, equal opportunity and equal protection supercede your private property rights.*
How would some of you counter this arguement?
One could just as easily defend Jim Crow on the basis of conforming to the supposed "rules of society". Both systems are flawed because they denigrate the rights of the individual. Also, does this "equal protection" apply to other minorities, or just racial ones? Should hotel and restaurant owners be forced to accomodate neo-Nazis or incredibly obnoxious people, or smokers for that matter? (in the latter instance, the PC left forces restaurant owners NOT to abide by "equal protection")

[nolvorite]

Their information about the Civil Rights Act is totally illegitimate. Do realize that segregation on public schools/offices/etc. was forced in the south, in the North it was optional to do so. Black people didn't complain much in the north back then. hmmm....

and also the split of the vote on the Civil Rights act was not a liberal or conservative bias, it was more with the geographical location. The people in the South didn't want to desegregate, but the people in the North thought it was ok to force desegregation because that's how it is in their area.

[Bruno]

The irony is how conspiritorial it sounds.

+ rep

[Monarchist]

Do realize that segregation on public schools/offices/etc. was forced in the south, in the North it was optional to do so. They didn't really complain much in the north. hmmm....

Pretty interesting article regarding segregation in The North (New Jersey in particular): http://blog.nj.com/ledgerarchives/2008/02/separate_but_average_segregate.html

[South Park Fan]

Their information about the Civil Rights Act is totally illegitimate. Do realize that segregation on public schools/offices/etc. was forced in the south, in the North it was optional to do so. Black people didn't complain much in the north back then. hmmm....

and also the split of the vote on the Civil Rights act was not a liberal or conservative bias, it was more with the geographical location. The people in the South didn't want to desegregate, but the people in the North thought it was ok to force desegregation because that's how it is in their area.

You'll notice that it is rich white liberals who defend the CRA mythology much more often than the blacks who would supposedly be victimized by CRA repeal.

[KramerDSP]

The Nazi moderators at Huff Po would not let two of my comments go through that argued RP had the best platform for minorities and that he represents real changes that President Obama only talked about. Gestapo.

[low preference guy]

The Nazi moderators at Huff Po would not let two of my comments go through that argued RP had the best platform for minorities and that he represents real changes that President Obama only talked about. Gestapo.

If you want, post them here and I'll try to repost them. I'm austriaco. I never comment but I can do it now.

[Jay Tea]

That's right the 1964 bill; a bill that's been the law of the land for nearly six decades

Someone needs to introduce this writer to math. That's nearly five decades, not six.

[bb_dg]

Sorry, I know I'm re-posting, but the opposing side has a point here that if we don't prove is wrong, they will always have this negative view toward Ron Paul.


On his campaign website ronpaul2008.com, Paul highlighted this as "Issue: Racism." "Government as an institution is particularly ill-suited to combat bigotry." In other words, the 1954 landmark Supreme Court's Brown vs. Board of education school desegregation decision, the 1964 and 1968 Civil Rights Acts, the 1965 Voting Rights Act, and legions of court decisions and state laws that bar discrimination are worthless. Worse, said Paul, they actually promoted bigotry by dividing Americans into race and class.

How would Ron Paul show that these pieces of legislation are not good in combating bigotry.

[ronpaulitician]

If Ron Paul saw this, what would he say in response to this?
You mean, in "your words" they are worthless. In "my words", I believe that the power of individuals is far greater at accomplishing this change we both desire. The institution of government has had more than half a century and bigotry is still around. Now, I am of the mindset that it will always be around, but I am also of the mindset that it is individuals, not goverment, who are able to accomplish the near eradication of bigotry, It is our responsibility to do so. When we see a business owner openly (or secretively, which is what they will do it you make it illegal for them to do it openly) discriminate against an individual, we must be vocal about it. We must tell all we know, and shun that establishment. The loss of so many potential customers-- for I think we can both agree that the vast majority of Americans despise bigotry and would do anything not to participate in it-- will crush these businesses, while other, more open businesses, will thrive.

[nocompromises]

Minorities would do much better for themselves without an income tax, without the Federal Reserve boosting inflation, and without their children being sent to fight around the world in undeclared wars!

[nocompromises]

For example, I do not believe in sex before marriage. If I had properties, I would not rent a room or home to any couple who were not married. This is due to my religion. I would rather lose everything I had, than to let the government force me to rent to them.

[ronpaulitician]

For example, I do not believe in sex before marriage.
Wait... you believe in sex after marriage? Still single, eh? ;)

[NewRightLibertarian]

Minorities would do much better for themselves without an income tax, without the Federal Reserve boosting inflation, and without their children being sent to fight around the world in undeclared wars!

But that doesn't matter. Some racist newsletters from decades ago and thinking that one of the parts of the 1964 Civil Rights Act was unconstitutional, now THOSE are the real issues that matter to the public.

[Jay Tea]

Wait... you believe in sex after marriage? Still single, eh? ;)

http://img.chan4chan.com/img/2009-04-21/1240266540309.jpg

[TheBlackPeterSchiff]

It's a losing argument guys...in the public's eyes anyway. Most people were taught in public schools that if it wasn't for the Civil Rights act, Klansman would be walking the street and minorities would not be able to grab a cup of coffee.

[BarryDonegan]

How ironic they say this about the only defender of civil rights.

[freshjiva]

This entire topic just pisses me off. I cannot understand why liberals fail to see the logic behind RP's arguments here.

Ron Paul should just lay it down like this:

"Enforced slavery is unconstitutional because it violates individual liberty.
Enforced segregation is unconstitutional because it violates individual liberty.
Forcing decisions made by private property owners is unconstitutional because it violates individual liberty.

The common denominator is individual liberty. Why can't you liberals understand that? Under your beloved CRA, if a bunch of neo-Nazis walked into a store owned by a Jew, he'd be forced to serve them or else be jailed. How can you be so inconsistent in defending liberty?"

[RonPaulFanInGA]

Just don't understand this. You can refuse entry into your house anyone for whatever reason because it's your private property. Not even the biggest "progressive" 'tard will argue that one. But somehow, if it's your private business instead of your personal home; suddenly you lose that right and the government has the power to dictate to you who's allowed in.

If it's truly your private property: you should be able to allow or refuse entry/service to anyone, for any reason, you damn well choose. Just goes to show you, in a country in which the government can also take your land for not paying taxes, it isn't really yours. Just sad.

[guitarlifter]

Six decades eh?

2011
-1964
47

He's meaning the covering of decades: 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s, 00s, 10s = 6. Still, it's a way of making a law look like it's been in longer than it really has.

[tropicangela]

As I believe Stefan Molyneux would say, there's a gun in the room. Expose it.

http://www.lostlibertycafe.com/index.php/2010/12/11/the-gun-in-the-room/


In essence, then, all libertarian arguments come down to one single, simple statement:

“Put down the gun, then we’ll talk.”

Although libertarianism is generally considered a radical doctrine, the primary task of the libertarian is to continually reinforce the basic reality that almost everyone already is a libertarian. If we simply keep asking people if they are willing to shoot others in order to get their way, we can very quickly convince them that libertarianism is not an abstract, radical or fringe philosophy, but rather a simple description of the principles by which they already live their lives. If you get fired, do you think that you should hold your manager hostage until he gives you back your job? No? Then you already hold a libertarian position on unions, tariffs, and corporate subsidies. If you find your teenage son in your basement smoking marijuana, would you shoot him? No? Then you already hold a libertarian position on the drug laws. Should those who oppose war be shot for their beliefs? No? Then you already hold a libertarian position with regards to taxation.

So forget about esoteric details. Forget about the history of the Fed and the economics of the minimum wage. Just keep pointing out the gun in the room, over and over, until the world finally starts awake and drops it in horror and loathing.

[Kregisen]

The fact is the government has no right to discriminate against someone do to race or sex, but private individuals have a right to choose how to use their property. If I have a home for rent, and I don't want to lease it to a black man I'm an idiot. However, I would have the right to control my own property and if I don't want to rent my property to someone, let someone come into my business, or sell to someone that is my right!

If we don't have property rights, we have no rights at all. If I am FORCED to rent, sell, or do business with someone then MY RIGHTS are being violated!


What is it called when you force an individual to sell a good or service to someone else?

Slavery.

[ronpaulitician]

What is it called when you force an individual to sell a good or service to someone else?

Slavery.
Man, that's way too loaded.

I would go with "Pimpin'".

[MaxPower]

GOP presidential candidate Ron Paul still wages war against civil rights. And we really shouldn't be surprised since Paul has repeatedly gotten into hot water nearly every time he opens his mouth about anything that remotely touches on race. But this time Paul sailed past the outer limits with his defiant boast that he would not have voted for the landmark 1964 civil rights bill. That's right the 1964 bill; a bill that's been the law of the land for nearly six decades, and Paul still opposes.

Paul's rap against the bill is just as absurd and tortured as the rap that Southern Democrats and Northern GOP conservatives who bottled the bill up for more than a year in Congress used to pretty up their opposition to it. It violated property rights. Paul, nearly six decades after their efforts failed, tells Chris Matthews, "...I'm for property rights and for state's rights, and therefore I'm a racist, that's just outlandish."

But what else would you call it? The equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment wiped away the bogus claim that property rights trumps racial discrimination a century before Paul and Jim Crow maintenance proponents used this ploy to torpedo the civil rights bill. There's method, though, to Paul's silly and repeated knock of the law. He's now a declared 2012 GOP presidential candidate. And he knows full well that there are legions of frustrated, disgusted, even enraged defrocked GOP backers and purported libertarians that are desperate to have an alternative to the drab, lackluster, and downright zany cast of would be GOP presidential contenders.

Paul gives those desperate for an alternative exactly what they want. That's a candidate who will say anything to tweak the establishment. Paul actually garnered a 49 percent approval rating in the recent AP-GfK Roper Public Affairs and Corporate Communications. That high an approval rating put him far ahead of Minnesota representative Michele Bachmann of Minnesota, former Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, former Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty, Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels, and former Utah Gov. and Ambassador to China Jon Huntsman in the GOP favorability derby.

The cornerstone of his appeal is his view of government and what it should or should not do about civil rights. Paul holds that government should have minimal, or better still, no role in civil rights laws and enforcement. The government passed and enforced civil rights laws, did nothing to solve the country's racial ills, and worse, fueled even more racial polarization, he says. That old, worn, and thoroughly discredited view warms the hearts of the packs of closet bigots that pine for the old days when racial and gender discrimination was the American norm and government did little to protect black and gay rights.

On his campaign website ronpaul2008.com, Paul highlighted this as "Issue: Racism." "Government as an institution is particularly ill-suited to combat bigotry." In other words, the 1954 landmark Supreme Court's Brown vs. Board of education school desegregation decision, the 1964 and 1968 Civil Rights Acts, the 1965 Voting Rights Act, and legions of court decisions and state laws that bar discrimination are worthless. Worse, said Paul, they actually promoted bigotry by dividing Americans into race and class.

Paul was outraged during his short lived presidential bid in 2008 when he was dinged as a racist when the above, as well as embarrassing newsletters that were either written by Paul or authorized by Paul on his sites in the 1990s (along with racially front loaded inflammatory quips that bashed blacks), was cited. The Paul-attributed digs and insults called blacks chronic welfare grifters, thugs, lousy parents, and said they are inherently racist toward whites. Paul vehemently denied that he said any of those things.

The quips appeared in his officially approved newsletters. There is no evidence that he wrote a correction, or issued a clarification. The jury then and now is still out on whether those views truly represent his feelings or not. He loudly protests that he's not a racist now because he has to if he is to have any credibility as a serious presidential contender.

But an anti-civil rights position linked directly to the old property rights canard is another matter. It fits neatly into the stock libertarian argument that the best thing that government can do is stay out of the affairs of private citizens and private business. That the root of America's woes -- bloated spending, soaring deficits, congressional gridlock, crippling energy dependence, massive tax disparities, the drug plague, and even America's wars are the result of top heavy government interference and intrusion in the lives of Americans. Paul also knows that spicing up the horribly distorted Jeffersonian principle of limited government with race is always a good catch all.

It is a surefire way to get the media and public attention, and to get back in the political hunt. Fallen media curiosity Donald Trump used the race tact to masterful effectiveness by recycling the birther craziness about President Obama's birth certificate. It didn't last, but he got his 15 minutes.

Paul will get more than that. Unlike Trump he's a politician who knows how to get and sustain attention. And knocking civil rights when all else fails is always good for that.
Just astonishing how many obvious distortions and outright falsehoods can be crammed into one article and actually published in a major national publication.

From the first paragraph on downward:

1. Ron Paul certainly didn't "defiantly boast" that he wouldn't have voted for the Civil Rights Act; rather, Matthews brought it up and asked him about it, and the most emphatic statement Dr. Paul made about his position was "Yeah, but..."
2. The Civil Rights Act has been law for about 47 years, or nearly five decades, not six.
3. The second paragraph repeats the above mistake.
4. Ron Paul certainly doesn't "say anything to tweak the establishment," but rather says only what is in line with his personal philosophy, which is often at odds with the establishment.
5. The statement that "The cornerstone of his appeal is his view of government and what it should or should not do about civil rights" is surely a deliberate falsehood on the part of the author. Ron Paul has authored several bestselling books, and in not one of them has he devoted significant space to the matter of government's role in civil rights. I have never seen him bring this issue up in an interview or in any context at all raise the matter without its first having been raised to him. The cornerstone of his appeal lies in his consistent philosophy, genuine passion and proven integrity.
6. Ron Paul does not claim that all legal measures in opposition to racism are useless or counter-productive, but rather only those which violate the Constitution and/or individual rights; in fact, he stated in the very interview this article responds to that he would have supported the passage of laws striking down public-sector discrimination.
7. The newsletters were not published on Ron Paul's "sites," but rather were a physical publication, and according to both Ron Paul and individuals known to have worked on his staff at the time, were neither written nor directly scrutinized/edited by Ron Paul himself.
8. Ugly as some of the sentiments in the newsletters were, I do not believe any of them ever claimed that blacks were "inherently racist against whites."
9. If Ron Paul were one to distort his views and go back on past statements in order to maintain "credibility as a serious presidential contender," surely he would already have long since abandoned his positions on drug legalization, prostitution, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, etc., and would never have made the statements to Chris Matthews which this article attacks.
10. Again, if the author actually watched the interview he is writing about, surely he is aware that Ron Paul did not bring up or emphasize the matter of the Civil Rights Act, and thus said author is being deliberately disingenuous in asserting that Dr. Paul is using this position as a campaign tactic or media attention-grab.

This guy literally does not seem able to write a full paragraph which does not include at least one deliberate falsehood, gross distortion or factual error.

[nobody's_hero]

It's a hit-piece.

It doesn't have to be factually correct. Its readers just have to be really ignorant.

[jmdrake]

It's really simple. The 14th amendment doesn't cover private commerce and the interstate commerce clause doesn't intrastate commerce. Libertarians muddy the waters with abstract talk of property rights when they could win the argument easily from a constitutional point of view. Rand attempted to make that argument when he was bushwhacked by Maddow, but he was all over the map. (He did mention the interstate commerce clause).

[randomname]

slandering fucks! :D

hxxp://www.huffingtonpost.com/tag/ron-paul-racist

[nocompromises]

It's really simple. The 14th amendment doesn't cover private commerce and the interstate commerce clause doesn't intrastate commerce. Libertarians muddy the waters with abstract talk of property rights when they could win the argument easily from a constitutional point of view. Rand attempted to make that argument when he was bushwhacked by Maddow, but he was all over the map. (He did mention the interstate commerce clause).

The main reason that everyone has the right to choose who they do business with is property rights. If we go into interstate commerce clauses, we avoid the main issue. If you do not have control over your own property, you are a slave.

[BenIsForRon]

The main reason that everyone has the right to choose who they do business with is property rights. If we go into interstate commerce clauses, we avoid the main issue. If you do not have control over your own property, you are a slave.

Whatever, I don't think a civilized society would have police use force to remove blacks doing a peaceful sit in. Ron Paul is wrong on this, but that's OK, because he's so right on shit that actually matters today.

[S.Shorland]

Here is Ron talking in Congress about the mistake of the CRA in regards to property rights during the celebration for its fortieth anniversary,in 2004:

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

[jmdrake]

The main reason that everyone has the right to choose who they do business with is property rights. If we go into interstate commerce clauses, we avoid the main issue. If you do not have control over your own property, you are a slave.

:rolleyes: And this is why libertarians consistently lose elections. They don't understand how to argue from the alternative. This Huffington post quoted the 14th amendment. Rather than going off on some property rights tangent, one could point out why HuffPo is misconstruing the very constitution they are relying on. But hey, try the same stupid won't win techniques over and over again and wonder why you keep losing ground. Further the interstate commerce clause IS THE MAIN ISSUE! There has NEVER been a time in this nation's history (or in the history of any other nation for that matter) that property rights were absolute. But there was a time when federal power was limited. Sometime you should take a property law class and understand how this all came about and not depend on libertarian talking points for your entire understanding of the issue.

[jmdrake]

Whatever, I don't think a civilized society would have police use force to remove blacks doing a peaceful sit in. Ron Paul is wrong on this, but that's OK, because he's so right on shit that actually matters today.

Ron Paul is right from a constitutional interstate commerce clause position. The role of the federal government should have been simply to keep the states from violating the rights of blacks. That would have given blacks the tools they needed to throw off their own chains without further solidifying the federal government's power over everything. For instance, Ron Paul supported the Brown v. Board of education decision. People mistakenly assume he was against it because he had reservations about a resolution commending it. But if you read between the lines you see that Dr. Paul felt the federal government went to far in implementing the decision. (i.e. the Civil Rights act and forced busing. See: http://ronpaulquotes.com/chapters/2004-33.html)

[Elwar]

Once again I must bring out these poll results:

http://i45.tinypic.com/sphd8z.png

[low preference guy]

Whatever, I don't think a civilized society would have police use force to remove blacks doing a peaceful sit in. Ron Paul is wrong on this, but that's OK, because he's so right on shit that actually matters today.

The police should remove anyone who is in somebody else's property without the consent of the owner. That is, if you want to live in a society where private property exists.

[PaleoForPaul]

From the original article:


That's right the 1964 bill; a bill that's been the law of the land for nearly six decades, and Paul still opposes.

How long was slavery the law of the land? Was it wrong to be against it because it had been the "law of the land" for so long?

This douchebag has some really tortured logic.