Saturday, May 14, 2011

Chris Mathews Implies Ron Paul Is Racist

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Birthplace of Independent Conservatism

Ron Paul in the week he announced his candidacy for the presidency of the United States placed himself in the spotlight of controversy over the 1964 Civil Rights Act. He stated on the Chris Matthews show that he would have voted against the act were he in congress at the time.

Rep. Paul's reason is consistent with his position on property rights and that the act violated the property rights of independent businesses. This is in holding with constitutional principles and Libertarian values advocated by Paul.

Those who remember Senator Bary Goldwater will remember he voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act on the same property rights basis expressed by Rep. Paul on the Mathews show. Senator Barry Goldwater was the Republican Presidential nominee in 1964.

Chris Mathews, in typical progressive fashion, implied that Paul was a racist because of his position on the Civil Rights Act. Of course this only points up Mathews ignorance of, or lack of understanding with respect to the body of law respecting property rights.

Representative Paul:

I believe that property rights should be protected. Your right to be on TV is protected by property rights because somebody owns that station. I can't walk into your station. So right of freedom of speech is protected by property. The right of your church is protected by property. So people should honor and protect it. This gimmick, Chris, it's off the wall when you say I'm for property rights and states rights therefore I'm a racist. That's just outlandish.
Paul added that any talk of the segregated South that the Civil Rights Act aimed to reform is too old to be relevant anyway, saying the specter of Whites Only signs is "ancient history."

Besides, Paul says that the Jim Crow laws would have ended without the Civil Rights Act anyway, a view held by many libertarians who believe the free markets solve social problems.{Read More}

The left's attempt to frame Paul as a racist based on his stance with respect to the 1964 Civil Rights Act amounts to progressive demagoguery and nothing more.


More at The Other McCain.

Cross posted to the Left Coast Rebel

Via: Memeorandum


  1. I don't know if Ron Paul is personally a racist, but that flimsy property rights argument against the Civil Rights Act has long been known to be cover for racism and polical pandering to racists.

    Who you keep out of your home, your car - your private property - is wholly your business. Who you keep out of your public business is another matter.

    When you do business with the public you have to live by the public laws. You can not hire from the public, trade with the public, manufacture products for the public, without abiding the public law. It is for the general welfare and security of the public, and it provides a safe and profitable enviroment for doing business with the public.

    Most importantly, you can not benefit from the public infrastructure and services, funded by the the public largesse, and then arbitrarily deny certain members of the public from doing business with you.

    This is Constitutional Law 101 and Paul is completely wrong on it. He is pandering to a very dumb and nasty constituency with a pseudo-constitutional argument that is as transparent as Goldwater's was back in the 60's. That sleazy argument was developed in an early incarnation of the Southern Strategy.

    That Paul would even engage in that argument is racist, just for historical reasons. He knows all the history here. It is historically racist, in that the "property rights" argument was long ago exposed as specious and incorrect, even by very conservative and libertarian jurists and scholars.

    Look, it's as simple as this:


    The Constitution provides equal protestion under the law, it overrules all states and localities on that. In other words, if you do business in the public sphere, you are obliged to to business with all the public, regardless of race, religion, creed, gender, etc.

    If you have a personal problem with a person, based on personal interaction, that's another matter. If a person abuses your rights, be it at your business or home or wherever, then you have Constitutional recourse. If a person offends you simply by being in your public business - that's your problem. Get over it.


  2. JMJ - It is as simple as this... When you own a business it is your property. Whom you chose to serve {or not to serve} should be at your your discretion.

    The market is self correcting and responds to social realities for the simple reason it is in everyones interest to do so.

    Only a fool thinks otherwise.

    So, I guess by your comment I know where you fit in.

    Now I suppose you will be calling me a raaaaacist!

  3. Les, I DO respect Mr. Paul's position regarding property rights. But the south in 1964 was so beyond the pale in terms of its overt racism that this provision almost had to be enacted. Principles are excellent, but just like the snuffing out of bin Laden was the right thing to do, so, too, was the getting rid of separate lunch counters, IMHO.

  4. Les, if you do business with the PUBLIC, in the PUBLIC SPHERE, and you are protected and considered a special class within that PUBLIC SPHERE, you should at the very least observe common public law. Is that really too much to ask?


  5. Of course you are a racist. You prove it all the time. Birther.

  6. Anon- And you have the balls of a knat. Hiding behind your faceless nameless moniker.

    Time you grew up, stood up, and were counted for the obvious idiot you are.

  7. Here is Ron Paul writing about the "black menace"

    "The criminals who terrorize our cities -- in riots and on every non-riot day--are not exclusively young black males, but they largely are. As children, they are trained to hate whites, to believe that white oppression is responsible for all black ills, to "fight the power," and to steal and loot as much money from the white enemy as possible. Anything is justified against "The Man." And "The Woman." A lady I know recently saw a black couple in the supermarket with a cute little girl, three years old or so. My friend waved to the tiny child, who scowled, stuck out her tongue, and said (somewhat tautologically): "I hate you, white honkey." And the parents were indulgent. Is any white child taught to hate in this way? I've never heard of it."


As this site encourages free speech and expression any and all honest political commentary is acceptable. Comments with cursing or vulgar language will not be posted.

Effective 8/12/13 Anonymous commenting has been disabled. This unfortunate action was made necessary due to the volume of Anonymous comments that are either off topic or serve only to disrupt honest discourse..

I apologizes for any inconvenience this necessary action may cause the honest Anonymous who would comment here, respect proper decorum and leave comments of value. However, The multitude of trollish attack comments from both the left and right has necessitated this action.

Thank you for your understanding... The management.