Civil Rights Act

@regisjbeakensr THIS IS EXACTLY WHY RON PAUL, YOU, AND OTHER DUMAZZEZ AND MORONS THAT SUPPORT HIM AND GET A HARD ON WHEN HE SPEAKS WILL NEVER SNIFF THE WHITEHOUSE. HE WILL JUST CONTINUE TO SELL ALL OF YOU THE WET DREAM YOU HAVE BEEN BUYING ABOUT HOW HE HATES GOVT ALL THE WHILE HE CONTINUES TO COLLECT HIS GOVT CHECK AND HIS GOVT HEALTHCARE AND OTHER BENEFITS...LOL WHAT A BUNCH OF IDIOTS

GOOD DAY

P.S. ...YOU NEED TO GET OUT MORE AND REALIZE THAT THE COUNTRY WILL GET BROWNER AND BROWNER...LIVE WITH IT CRYBABY

blacks have abused the system to where whites are fed up.anyone who came here after the war gets on the band wagon for slavery. my ass. 20% of blacks have slavery heritage and many were owned

by blacks. less than 20% of whites owned blacks . italians were treated like blacks till they took over. AND MIGHT I ADD MANY WHITE MEN DIED FOR YOU OR DIXIE WOULD HAVE ONE. NORTHERN WHITES FREED YOU ASS not blacks like people are led to believe. and if i don't want to live by blacks that is my right that was taken away. and if your interracial your black.

You can't pass a law making people like each other. YOUCAN pasws laws making people go to the same schools, eat at the same restraunts and live in the same areas, thus allowing people to get to know each other. . If people don't know each other HOW can they learn to love and accept each other. It's easier to hate a stranger than to like him.

ron paul does'nt have alzheimers i do.

keithline if you don't have a thought to express the issues just read and learn something you wasted a comment. i won't stoop to your level and tell you how i really feel about your comment., but if you think you hurt anyone we blew you off for what you are. sorry people too many are quite intelligent with all views having some truth to it. ty god bless peace be with you all.

I agree with Ron Paul on this one.

You cannot force someone to like, or accept, someone else. Prejudice has existed, does exist, and will always exist. Every time we see, meet, or speak to someone new we get a fist impression. It's not a choice we make, it's inherent. It's human nature.

That's not to say that our first impressions are always correct, just that we should stop behaving like it's somehow immoral, or evil, to have them. What we can control, however, are our actions based upon those impressions. But that's up to the individual, not the government. I refer to #3 Freedom of Thought, in my article:

http://richardmccord.com/opinions/freedom/

ok i'm white and owe nobody anything i'm sick and tired of this poor me bull. how about i had to move from a town 12000 but jobs everywhere went the marines came out and they had to hire blacks to mkeep gov't jobs so a town with 3 people black had to go to the city and get blacks in our town one was mailman my mother called me on the phone all upset she says" we got one right here" i lived in south florida funnier than hel this country now discriminates against whites. how about laziness they come to work cause trouble threaten the bosses both naacp and physically i didn't put up with that kind

i put a heavy bag speed bag strike back bag and 400lbs weights if they felt froggy we would visit my toys and i would say don't ever threaten me again fired and beat same i am 5'9" 230 15% bodyfat used to be 8

Sorry folks, the name "Tea Party" has been commandeered by theocratic authoritarian neocons, and the historical prank's meaning has gone with it.
What we need is a NEW prank...

The Civil Rights Act is not responsible for keeping black America down. Unlimited hereditary welfare, encouraged by white leftist plantation masters, bears the primary responsibility. Post-civil rights Black Americans were on their way up before they were herded into government funded slums and encouraged to address grievances by taking "free" money.

This is Dave, I changed my Screen Name. (You all probably could have guessed that. LOL.) Anyway:

I have a couple of ideas I'd like to throw around and see what you all think about them.

I watched the documentary about the Ron Paul Revolution, the origin of the Tea Party in 2007, and the 2007 campaign. I didn't even know about Ron Paul back then; I wish I had and I wish I was a part of the movement back then. But, I see how all the grassroots support was pretty independent, and all fun.

Idea one: I wouldn't want to take away from the creativity, the individualism, or the fun away, but I wonder, since Ron Paul is a lot more well known these days, if we who support Ron Paul and this revolution, can reform and deploy a lot more seriously this time around. I wonder if we could somehow organize nationwide boycotts of Fox News, and all companies that advertise on the Fox Network. Maybe even boycott everything that has to do with fox, even their movies. If they aren't going to take our candidate seriously, and black him out, then maybe it's time to fight fire with fire, and become a more serious revolution, a political force to be reckoned with. I'm thinking we can write a letter, and have as many as we can petition it, send it to Fox, and send a copy to every company that advertises on Fox that we intend to boycott, until our candidate gets fair and equal air time, and interviews, and we're going to be keeping track.

Idea two: Do you guys think we can start up another Tea Party, and call it something along the lines as; "The Original Ron Paul Tea Party" founded 2007.

Idea three: Does anyone think that it could be feasible to begin a nationwide 3RD Party Alliance, with all third party groups and fringe groups? Not that we are going to agree with each other on everything, but create a movement for the sole purpose of challenging the statist quo, and to bring a political fight to the establishment? Do you think that it could be possible to unite the Constitutionalist, the Libertarian Party, Green Peace, Peace and Freedom, ACLU, Free Church Movement, and others, not to embrace each others' ideologies, but just to support a fringe candidate just for the sake of finally dethroning the establishment? I wonder if there are any people out there who would be willing to engage other grass roots, third party, and fringe politic leaders and organizers in conversations to form a coalition, a Third Party Alliance.

What do you guys think?

-Patriot Dave

Spuishi, and Tammy:

Squishi,

I was going to "like" your comment, but I was trying to do it from my i-phone, and accidently like hit "dislike." Sorry about that. I had to get on my laptop to post, lol.

Yeah, I was going to like your comment, and the European guy's comment, etc., one because they are well written arguments, not mindless jabber, and also because a huge pet peeve of mine is how it seems like many folk act as if NOTHING EVER HAPPENED. I hear Fox talk radio jockys laugh at people who bring up race issues, and snicker at them, as if to say that it's all in the past, and let's forget about it, and anything we say, and everything we do, has nothing to do with race. That's bovine feces! Marry your daughter off to a big chocolate man and I'll believe you.

For example, I was listening to Fox radio in the car one day, when a black man was on the radio explaining that "Obama has the Black vote. We all know why the Blacks are going to vote for him." The talk jock, (I don't know his name) mocked him and repeated in a sarcastic voice, "Yeah, we all know why, huh. Yeah, we all know why." What is that? Why do they mock? Why is it so hard for some White people to just accept history for what it was, and the fact that racism is not dead in our country?

Speaking of marriage, however, I can not say that things are as bad as it used to be everywhere. Where I'm from, there are tons of interracial marriages and children born to these unions. There is a lot more tolerance these days. But, I would be naive to eat the pie-in-the-skie ideals of full fledged Libertarians. Yes, I do believe Dr. Paul believes a little TOO much in the inherent good-will of humanity. Unlike his stance on foriegn policy, history is not on his side concerning this issue.

Tammy:

I am BIG believer in education. I'm not that big of fan of our current public education, but like you said, it's not the same every where. I guess some places have steller education programs, and turn out bright grads, etc., while other places underperform. I do tend to trust Dr. Paul's assessment of the Dept. of Education, and its impact on public education, but I'm no expert on the subject. I do feel that publically funded schools have way too much offerings, things that perhaps could be funded privately by their parents. That said however, I would consider myself more Jeffersonian than libertarian. Jefferson believed that free education and free press would ensure a free society. If I were running for president, I would address every issue that Dr. Ron Paul is addressing, but I wouldn't touch the Civil Rights Act, and most likely investigate and reform the dept. of education and public schooling.

Dave

Something is fundamentally wrong with anyone who believes that segrgatiin was less of an infrigement on individual rights than the "forced integration" brought by the Civil Rights Act. To say that public attitudes changed and that race relations are better DESPITE the Civil Rights Act is just dumb. So White people were eventually going to say "Ya know, I think I'll let that nigra sit at my lunch counter today" or "I think it'll be good for the nigras to be able to dine in tonght instead of picking it up at the kitchen in back" or "That nigra lady looks tired, as a man I should give my front bus seat to her"... Racial strife? I think we had a Civil War over racial strife (oops I mean state's rights... to have slaves). Racial strife existed before and after integration. Google Rosewood or Black Wall Street. Revisionist history isn't cute under any political title. But the fact that the Libertarian thinks that founding fathers were the cornerstone for civil liberties when they owned slaves, and that White Only is a property rights not human rights issue... Absurd!

I've heard stories of German POW's receiving more rights than Black Soldiers during WW2. Able to seek leisure and dine places, American citizens weren't. This is a tragic circumstance. To look at that and see property rights vs. immorality is out of touch if not worse!

Not to be awful, but if given the opportunity will White Americans do the right thing in situations such as providing rights to all citizens, etc.? The answer would be no. I have rarely met a White American who does not believe they are superior based on pigment alone. It doesn't matter if it is a hillbilly from WV, there is something about Whites in America that is inherently insidious. I for one would not want to have to wait around for a bunch of White people to get a conscience and a brain for that matter for my life to change and I'm a White person albeit a transplanted European with much better fashion sense and overall taste. I digress..

I see if from the perspective of a person who is generally appalled at the anti-intellectual bent of most White Americans. Being left to your own devices rarely works out for anyone but yourselves. Try not to be too revisionist with you history you loveable Yanks.

I would say though, if I were Black in America I would NEVER trust a White person. Ever. I would smile in your face and play nice, but I would watch my back 24/7. Any minority that does otherwise seems to pay an extremely high price for that trust. As an economist, that cost is too high and the reward non-existent.

It is your country though. Whites that is. You can do whatever you will, but it won't be an easy road for you. Encouraging a return to 18th and 19th century America will prove to be more bloody than you could ever imagine. The expectation that you are going to drag America back to a time where only White males had rights is going to be your undoing. But do as you will.

Enjoy your evening and best of luck to Mr. Paul.

Cheers!

If the civil rights act had not been passed, how many more decades would it have taken for segregation to end on its own? For that matter, if the emancipation proclamation had not been signed, how long would it have been before people took it upon themselves to tire of their slave labor and hire paid employees instead? I think Mr. Paul has a lot of great thoughts, but he places way to much faith in human beings to do the right thing. If it were that simple we wouldn't need any laws.

RACE, RELIGION, CASTE, MONEY, and anything else the divides one person from another is only more fuel to the fire.
By this I do not mean equality. Liberty is finding beauty and nurture it in what ever form it might be.
Dear Dr. Paul,
I share your empathy towards the Americans, the current foreign policies, and the dismal economy. With what I have heard you say so far, these effects are still repairable.
I want to understand your approach towards the minorities and under-privileged populace, with regards to Education, Healthcare, employment opportunities, etc.
Liberty in its purest sense would mean equality! This as I understand is too altruistic.

What are the first few things you do if you become the President of United States to strike a social balance?

Sincerely
Your supporter

The law is wrote by definition,however the perspective of that law can be changed.

For example everyone has a right to own their own "home", & all the companies refer to "houses" technically a house it not a home so you cannot own it.
Just one way these crooks fk with the law.

Ignore all the bs about Ron Paul, the people at the top are very scared of him, I wonder why lol.

Go Ron Paul :-)

Sadly, there is a large number of people opposed to Obama because he's black.

Notice that nowhere in this statement does Ron Paul say he believes in the equality of all races? He just says he's in favor of "racial harmony".

I feel Tammy's pain! That said, there is NO WAY I will vote for anyone else but Ron Paul! In spite of our disagreements, I'M VOTING RON PAUL! Period. That said, I and others who also will vote for him have the same shuttering down the spine feeling that Tammy gets when he says things about the Civil Rights Act, and Dept. of Education. Well, honestly, I don't care about the Dept. of Education issue, (not because I don't care about education) but it pales in comparison to the Civil Rights Act. Listen, I don't know the ethnicity of those of you who are against it. But my dad is a victim of racism, and a store cashier threw money at my great grandmother's face. We're Hispanics, JFYI. I must imagine that it's easy to talk down the Civil Rights Act being a member of the most advantaged race in the land. The Civil Rights initiatives were fought long and hard for many decades by oppressed peoples who suffered shame because of Jim Crow laws and rape, theft and murder by the hands of white people. Ok, I kept saying private businesses. How about we keep it on incorportaed businesses and public businesses? When you incorporate you become a "creature of the state" anyways. Corporations are subject to state regulations anyways. I don't know. Just some thoughts.

But Tammy, Ron Paul is the only candidate I can vote for. I can not vote for anyone else. I wouldn't worry about it. He's a very smart man and I'm sure he would try to phase out anything he doesn't like. Beside that, we have congress and the judicial system to help slow things down. LOL. Checks and balances, and also referendum just in case we don't like something. That is how a democracy is supposed to work. But, above all these issues, WE got to END THE FED, foreign aid, global wars, policing and nation building, and all the corersion, and all that crap that is smothering us to death. VOTE RON PAUL 2012!

I've read a few of the comments here and what a lot of people seem to be missing is that reverse discrimination is not only inefficient, it violates the fundamental liberties of those under its foot. Purchasing labor isn't any different than purchasing anything else of value.

This is like the government telling you that you have to make certain percentages of your purchases at various stores to make sure everyone gets the business. However you claim that you should be able to spend your money as you see fit. Employers should be given the same right.

When it comes to the public sector, they are spending our money in essence, so there must be a higher standard. However, quotas aren't the answer, as we cannot assume that the best people for the jobs are going to be distributed by some formula based upon race or gender. This is supposed to be the point here, to have the best people hired.

It is also clear that such legislation worsens relations instead of improving them, as Ron points out. People generally don't need much of a reason to hate, but when they see racial or gender bias depriving them of their livelihood, or the livelihood of others, now we've really given then a reason.

The sooner we are rid of these ill conceived, conunterproductive, and oppressive constraints the better, and it's great that we have someone like Ron who is not afraid to act upon principles rather than just look to appease people, as is the norm in Washington.

You have a "better" idea? Let's hear it. Laissez-faire?

I have to come to the conclusion Ron Paul is right. The civil rights movement was the cause for equality , not the civil rights act enforced. I have little doubt that the movement could have advanced as quickly without it though. With the changing times and colors of America, I am anxious to see how well civil rights remain once the colors have flipped. This day is not to far off in our countries future. I believe equality has arrived between the people. I am not fool enough to believe racism is dead, if not flipped from one evil to another. Once you use a quota system in either manor, you stifle growth and continue using rascism as a cause.

It's obvious why the Civil Rights Act is such a hotbed topic but in all honesty, the fact that it "had" to exist in the first place is completely abhorrent. We are talking about a FEDERAL law that dictates to PRIVATIZED business how they MUST conduct there business. How does that not seem wrong to anyone? Would you like the Federal government to dictate what goes on in your living room? How is a persons place of business, REGARDLESS OF SKIN COLOR, any different. Both things were earned and fought for through determination and perseverance and have become PRIVATE PROPERTY. I agree with the above comment, "there is no such thing as reverse racism." Discrimination based on skin - white, green, purple, red, black, yellow, brown, polka-dotted - is discrimination. Extend that to discrimination of one socioeconomic class towards another. Or gender discrimination. All of these things are perpetrated every day either in the action or hearts of countless people. FACT. Is it right? Hell no! But these problems have faced humanity for time immemorial. Taking from the Christian Bible, "Is there one man who is perfect; No not one!" Regardless of religion the wisdom in this sentence is plain and true. No one is perfect, everyone errs. So why in the world does the government think they are doing a service by instituting laws that deny a person the right to be human? Bottom line, civil rights have come a looong way but not due to this Act. Its the people who stood up for their rights gaining respect for their determination and character to speak up when many just hide away inside themselves. By instituting the Civil Rights Act, racial tensions are only acknowledged and reiterated in the forcing of a person to abide by laws that make a person equal only on the color of their skin. Doesn't matter if your the laziest, slovenly, rudest, foul-smelling, under-educated human on the face of this planet. Your quota aint met, then Big Brother's gonna come a'running... That's despicable.

I don't know about you, but I try to judge a person solely on their character and pray they do the same with me. Not everyone gets along. FACT. It's that simple. Looking at the history of our country is obviously important but looking before it is equally important. Look to Africa before there was an America. Look to the warring of the tribes and the fact that to this day there is still unrest throughout the continent. Is that the fault of White America as well? Surely, injustices were done and they were widescale, but the wisdom of new generations of people learning from the mistakes of the previous generation is how humanity has thrived and survived since the dawn of man. To look at the actions of the few and persecute the many is absolutely counterproductive and for the government to have ever caved into denying the ability for mans humanity to man to develop and grow through mutual respect is terrifying...

There will always be bigotry. There will always be hatred. It takes the few to stand up and make a personal decision to say "I'm not going to accept that and its not how I'm going to be forced to live." to make a difference thats anything more than superficial. After all, Isn't that exactly how we came to be the United States of America in the first place?

I have a guess that Dr. Paul's statements here about civil rights is one reason why he may not stand a chance in a presidential election. I'm not saying he will not stand a chance, but I often read about the frustration of Ron Paul supporters who feel he does not get the same attention in the media as other Republican candidates--supporters feel he is being intentionally ignored. Dr. Paul's comments on civil rights (and education) give me an idea as to the problem.

For one, the idea of ending the civil rights act and the department of education is downright scary, in my opinion. They certainly have plenty of shortcomings, but ending them seems like an endorsement for people to discriminate against minorities, cut off programs that help children with special needs, etc. Sure, some states might enact their own programs, perhaps even a majority would do so. Ron Paul might be entirely correct, and everything and everyone would be much better off because the local and state governments would have the power to make programs according to their specific needs. But the idea of ending these federal programs is still frightening regardless of Ron Paul's positive intentions and the potential benefits. I assume that he feels the same about the department of human services. My first thought is that DHS protects children and women in abusive situations, and I know first hand that they have helped a lot of people in horrible situations. What if DHS comes to an end? That's the big question for me for ending any federal program: "What if?" What will happen to all of the people who depend on them? What will be the alternative solution?

Now, I admit that Dr. Paul has given a well-reasoned solution to ending the Fed. He said in the Ames Straw Poll, in response to a comment by Gringrich, that it would be a gradual process and that he agreed with Gringrich's proposals of heavily auditing the federal reserve and holding it responsible. So, that's great! If I could hear his proposed alternatives to ending the civil rights act, dept. of ed, dhs, and other federal social programs, I might be able to envision a future without them (as of now, I shudder to think of it). He seems to depend a whole lot on the good-will of individual people. But I think many will agree that the US is seeing a lot of greed, selfishness, and bigotry in our current times. Ideals are nice to envision and work towards, but idealism often doesn't go very far. Look at people's fear of communism and socialism. These are some people's ideals, too. But when you add human beings to the mix, they tend to fall apart.

So, here is the crux of the problem for Ron Paul. He is very radical, but I think Republicans are afraid that he is too radical for enough people to get behind him so he can win the presidential election. All one has to say is, "He wants to end the civil rights act" or the department of education or all social programs that a majority of people may benefit from (or at least they think they do). He stands the chance of sounding crazy even if he can defend his arguments. Now, most people will agree that these social programs have a lot of faults, and some think that more funding is the solution. If Ron Paul could initially focus on gradual changes so that we can first become independent of these programs, then his ideas might not sound so extreme. As of now, I'm not so sure he can win the primaries because I personally have a lot of concerns about his proposals, and I'm sure I'm not the only one.

Cameron, "created equal" was written in the Declaration of Independence, 1776, by Thomas Jefferson. Thomas Jefferson actually owned slaves as many others of the time. They were imperfect men, in spite of the fact that they were brilliant thinkers concerning liberty. In various states many people began to understand that slavery was incompatible with the ideals and philosophy of Liberty; thus, the Union began to form "slave states" and "free states" and the rift continued to tear the country apart until it culminated with the Civil War of the 1860's. You are right that White Supremecy in government empowered racist society to the very real disadvantage of Black Americans and other Non-Angolo Americans; and racial supremecy is counterintuitive to liberty. I firmly believe in private property rights. I don't beleive that government should impose any mandate on my own property that I use privately, such as code enforcement, and immanent domain. However, there is just no perfect answer in an imperfect society. If this country was made up of all milky white skin, blue eyes, and blond hair -- yes, no need for a Civil Rights act on private businesses. But, alas, I am forced to agree with you that we can not go back to "separate but equal" public policies, and even though I wish I did not really believe this, I feel this country would slip back to Jim Crow days at the drop of hat. It was only 44 years ago that Martin Luther King, Jr., was asassinated, and there is no such thing as "Heritage not Hate," when the heritage in question was all hatred.

Yes Ron Paul is right in one regard and that it violated the law of the Constitution...however, I believe the Constitution also stated from 1776 or whatever year it was that all men are equal, and should be treated equal if im correct so how would the south have the 3/8 clause that an African American counts as 3/8 of a person? That doesnt make sense, nor does it make sense how blacks were slaves and treated worse then a white slave owners pets. Being property of a white man clearly goes against the Constitution that all men are equal. Therefore, while Ron Paul is right that it violated the Constitution, all white Americans violated that for ALMOST 200 YEARS. There was no other way in which blacks would ever be an equal to whites unless Affirmative Actiont took Place, and the Civil Rights Act. The white race had over a 300 year head start on education, knowledge, and all social aspects of America that can never be erased or made up for so think about the big picture and entire American history when thinking about an act thats not even existed for 50 years

"Rights cannot be given nor taken away. They are inherent and inalienable. They exist independent of governance. Whether government recognizes them or not, they exist, thus government has no say. If anything, government by it’s very nature is a violation of rights as law is predicated upon coercion and violence. The fallacy in representative governance is that everyone cannot be represented simultaneously. Someone always loses out. Someone is always being forced to live as another dictates by proxy of representative government. How is this legitimate? "

Me:
The Problem: Tribal warfare. You think one group of people CAN NOT take away your rights? Then what is our struggle for LIBERTY, right now, all about? Call it what you want, but one group will always threaten your abstract, philosophical, theoretical "inalienable" rights, one way or another. What was it, 6 million Jews, took their theoretical "inalienable" human, natural, civil rights with them into furnaces and gas chambers. Thousands of Africans took their individual liberties with them into the shackles of American slavery; slavery in America: the "Land of the Free," struggling for a "More Perfect Union," whose free and brave fought for the rights to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness? Hundreds of Japanese Americans took their inalienable rights with them into American Concentration camps in the 40's. Inalienable natural rights were killed along with their owners, Native Americans, on Private Properties conquered by U.S. Cavalry hordes. NO ONE CAN TAKE THEM FROM YOU? You must be a naive idealist. I'm a realist. Sure, nobody can "TAKE" my rights away, if I choose to die for them in a worst case scenario, sure: "Give me Liberty or give me Death." But if I don't have the backbone or intestinal fortitude to make a stand for my "inalienable" rights in front of the long end of barrel, as probably you don't either, because we are members of a gutless idled culture of laxed principles and values, then they will always be constantly threatened. Right this second, we are slaves, even now, to the Federal Reserve System – so much for your hypothetical "inalienable" rights.

I think the Libertarian Party is way too broad in its focus, "the world". To borrow from Christian Scripture, if you can't take care of the little things, why worry about the rest? And, if you can't get your own house in order, how will you bring anything else to order? The Libertarians and Constitutionalist should unite on the principle ideas to form one real strong third party to give the Republicrats a real run for their money, (IRS), and redirect their primary focus to the United States, alone. I'm a true American, you can't get any more patriotic than to be suspicious of all government, politicians, authority, and herd/gang mentality. My RIGHTS are simply mine because, (*pump shotgun*), I say they are. If you want to mess with my rights, come and get 'em. It's LIBERTY or DEATH!

If you aren't being represented, it's because you have failed to represent YOURSELF. If you don't vote, you can't cry. If you DO vote, and you're still butt-hurt, become an activist, join a group, a cause: you’re gonna have to have some butch, pep, and push. A large group can have more influence through civil disobedience, THAT IS VERY AMERICAN. Besides that, if you don't KNOW your rights, you DON'T HAVE ANY, period, end of story!

My civil, natural, human, inalienable, (and any other embellishment you wanna give them) RIGHTS, are not universal rights, they are AMERICAN rights, because young men and woman died horrible god-awful deaths so you can ramble your naive, fool-hearty, idealistic head off. Can I get an AMEN? Hear, hear?

I'm a HUGE Ron Paul Fan. I'm very libertarian-leaning in my politics. I don't have a "gang" mentality, however, in the sense that I refuse to hear-out and reason with other ideologies. I still need to do more research on the effects of the Civil Rights act. What I do know, however, is that it is VERY EASY for a WASP, (White Anglo Saxon (male) Protestant) in the USA to not support a Civil Rights act that forces private businesses to include racial "minorities" in thier hiring practices; because, discrimination and segregation, lynching, and other injustices where not generally perpetraded against them in mass. FOUR HUNDRED YEARS of institutionalized racism, including slavery and various acts of genocide and concentration camps (reservations & plantations) have historically in this country and abroad have been perpetrated against peoples of brown skin complexion. If I was a Black Man in America, especially in the Jim Crow days, and If I had children that I had to feed and a family to support, but couldn't get a decent paying job just because of my skin color, YOU'RE DAMN RIGHT I WOULD DESIRE AND VOTE IN SUCH A CIVIL RIGHTS ACT that prevented any private business to discriminate against me on the basis of my ethnicity.

Did the Civil Rights Act fail in its intended purpose? Many of you say it did, Congressman Ron Paul says it did, but I can't help but to wonder if some of you are simply holding on to ideological ideals at all cost irregardless of this Country's shameful, hurtful, and harmful RACIST, BIGOTED, and HATEFUL, and UNJUST past. Libertarian ideals are IDEAL, in a perfect world. Unfortunately, the White Supremecist tradition of this country never lent itself to a "more perfect union," and the rights to equal justice for all individuals of all racial groups is just as important to the rights of provate properties and free markets.