(ThyBlackMan.com) GOP presidential candidate Ron Paul still wages war against civil rights. And we really shouldn’t be surprised since Paul has repeatedly got 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 one that Southern Democrats and Northern GOP conservatives that 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 an interviewer, “to say 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 that as well as embarrassing newsletters was cited 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. 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.
Written By Earl Ofari Hutchinson
One can find more info about Mr. Hutchinson over at the following site; TheHutchinson ReportNews.
Also feel free to connect with him through twitter; http://twitter.com/earlhutchinson
Imagine if you will a town with two restaurants. Restaurant A is owned by a racist. Restaurant B by contrast has an inclusive owner.
Prior to the CRA, Restaurant A had a “No Blacks” policy. Restaurant B served all customers regardless of race.
With passage of CRA, Restaurant A takes down its “No Blacks” sign and starts serving everyone. But, do we really think passing a law has changed the owner of Restaurant A from a racist to a non-racist? Of course not. Worse still is that black customers are going to now give Restaurant A’s owner more profits, while Restaurant B loses business, because Restaurant A’s racism is not gone, it’s merely covered up.
Ron Paul doesn’t have a “War on Civil Rights”. He’ not campaigning on repealing the Civil Rights Act and his diverse grassroots support isn’t based on a national desire to repeal the Civil Rights Act—it’s based on his stance on the wars and the economy as everything he (really common sense) said would happen is coming true before our eyes.
The only people obsessed with repealing the Civil Rights Act and opening up this issue from over 40 years ago are extreme left pundits afraid that his support could catch fire with liberals disillusioned with Obusha’s proven hypocrisy and Wall Street run policies, and who can’t really attack Paul on the issues of today because the last legs they had to stand on were kicked out from under them during Obama’s first term.
Obama turned out to be as much of a war monger as Bush. In fact, in all this talk about racism, I have yet to hear any liberals besides Wayne Madsen address the fact that the Libyan rebels Obama’s White House are supporting are carrying out a genocide of black Africans. This was happening even before the U.S. announced its support for them.
http://www.opednews.com/articles/Wake-up-Obama-s-Libyan-Re-by-Andrew-Steele-110330-369.html
On the economy, even rabidly left Democratic Congressmen question the Federal Reserve’s policies and the fact that our money is being given away to foreign central banks.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n0NYBTkE1yQ
We’re heading for a dollar crisis if we’re not careful and that reality is starting to be expressed in the mainstream, though the only answers being highlighted are more of the same big government policies that led us into this mess.
Though I can’t speak for the Paul campaign, the issue of racism was probably on the 2008 campaign site because people keep bringing it up and fear-mongering that Ron Paul is going to repeal the Civil Rights Act. (So of course he’s going to address it). The Civil Rights Act was a complicated issue with a lot of emotion attached to it, but unfortunately the media only appeals to this emotional part (that racism is of course bad) in order to stifle all intellectual debate and ignore the constitutional ramifications of well-meaning policies.
Like the argument Rand Paul made when Rachel Maddow tried to make an issue of this with him on her show: though racism is bad and the portions that prohibited discrimination on government property was right, the Civil Rights Act also sets the precedent that a bar owner in a locality where open carry is allowed who doesn’t want people to bring guns into his bar for obvious reasons can’t put in place that policy because his patrons have 2nd Amendment rights. Essentially this means that in the end nobody has real property rights.
Ron Paul does have an opinion on the Civil Rights Act based on these constitutional ramifications, not racism as people claim. However the only time he addresses this issue is when it’s brought up by liberal pundits during interviews as a mental sleight of hand in order to divert focus from the issues that he is actually actively attacking—foreign policy and the Federal Reserve. Even if people don’t agree with his intellectual opinion on the Civil Rights Act and/or even tremble at the misguided fear that Ron Paul is going repeal the Civil Rights Act when he takes office, ask yourself how he would be able to do that without an act of Congress…especially since he’s a proven strict constitutionalist.
Obviously such a move wouldn’t have popular support and couldn’t gain that support in the four years Ron Paul could realistically serve.
What he can do if suddenly placed in the position of commander in chief of the military presiding over several undeclared wars is bring the troops home from Iraq and Afghanistan, stop drone bombing people in Pakistan, and stop supporting the Libyan rebels that are killing black people left and right….which is his expressed desire.
Though you’ll never see Ron Paul march in a gay rights parade, he supported the repeal of “Don’t Ask, don’t tell” and doesn’t believe it’s the federal government’s role to define marriage.
http://conservativetimes.org/?p=8664
The newsletter story has been addressed already in 2008. Rather than address it myself I’ll let him do it for you…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RKBlk1Vpeuw
Vote for Obama if you want more war and the purchasing power of your savings to further evaporate. Otherwise consider a paradigm shift and stop fixating on contrived distractions.
He is no Racist. Thoughs newsletters had nothing to do with him but taint his 2008 election bid.
If anything he want to do the Minorities a good favor by Repealing the WAR on Drugs, and Pardoning any Non-Violent offenders from Jails, which he understands is a majority of minorities.
He wouldn’t waste time or the country’s money attempting to repeal these laws. He would also let out all blacks who are incarcerated for nonviolent drug crimes. He will leave the states to decide if drugs are legal then.