Yeah, it’s true. In fact, I believe the civil war was despicable, also.

Every other country in the world got rid of slavery without killing half of its nation’s population. lol

Those who think like HIM, will ALWAYS be in their minds till they draw their last breaths, SMDH……

He’s saying that every other country just the government buy the slaves and released them with not war. So did we not do the same he makes a good point. Also that might be the Mississippi state flag.

Wow! You really blew the lid off this one huh…

The real headline should be, “Ron Paul gives history lesson on the Civil War”. Not only is he not advocating slavery, he points out how the slaves could have been freed without war or loss of life.

If you even did 1 minute of research on the Civil War you’d find out that he is actually speaking the truth. The civil war was about government. Slavery was part of it yes no question, but it wasn’t the only issue.

Again I reiterate for those that don’t actually watch what you posted and just read the misleading headline.

RON PAUL DOES NOT ADVOCATE SLAVERY IN THIS VIDEO

So sick of these sensational headlines about Paul.

Ron Paul would have voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act because WE ALL HAVE THE SAME RIGHTS. Don’t you think a black restaurant owner should have the right to throw out a bunch of skinheads in HIS establishment? I do. The Civil Rights Act forbids that. Freedom works both ways dummy!

He is making a historical speech about abolitionists and the abolition of slavery. Sorry, what is the issue?

HIM as in GOD? or HIM as in the DEVIL?—Who are you worshipping?

The south attacked in 1861 you numbskull. Is it a job requirement to be dumb in order to be a jounalist now a days? It seems so.

Bull crap, Dr. Paul. If the slave owners sold their slaves, who were they going to use for free labor?

If the skinheads were respectable paying customers, they should be entitled to eat anywhere. You know just like respectable paying Black customers going into a KLAN owned restaurant, should be entitled to eat.

The Civil War was about slavery – damn it! Everybody knows that! And anybody who listens to somebody saying anything different than what I learned from my government approved textbook in my government run school is just stoopid.

It’s funny, because he starts the speech talking about how he respects the abolitionist Lysander Spooner, to a group of rednecks, I’d imagine. And he still gets accused of being ‘racist’. “But he’s standing in front of a Confederate flag fer cris’ sake!”

“History is written by the winners.” folks. That doesn’t mean it’s correct.

Two quotes from Abraham Lincoln….
“If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that.”

“I am not now, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social or political equality of the white and black races. I am not now nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor of intermarriages with white people. There is a physical difference between the white and the black races which will forever forbid the two races living together on social or political equality. There must be a position of superior and inferior, and I am in favor of assigning the superior position to the white man.”

Ron Paul understands that the civil war was fought for the development of a strong central government more than anything.

That isn’t right. What if the business doesn’t like Skinheads? Or nazis?

It should be the business owner’s right to kick them out. Quit screwing with property rights dude.

Ron Paul is wrong on so many issues. Looking forward to when he drops out of the race and is never heard from again.

I’d like to throttle the moron whose phone that was ringing throughout the last third of the video.

Demagoguing the issue and race baiting is the only thing I’ve seen so far from this website. His whole argument above is the discussion of centralized federal government versus limited federal government in light of its consequences on the course of our nation up to this point in history. Even Lincoln himself said the “government can not do for long, that which man could and should do for himself.” Nice propaganda hitpiece for those who don’t like to do independent critical analysis with brains of their own and historical knowledge and context. Race-baiting is for the people who can’t address the issues and principles, and try to create false paradoxes where none exist in order to attack the character of the only man who’s been speaking truth for 30 years now.

First of all it’s not true.

Under the leadership of former slaves Toussaint Louverture, Jean-Jacques Dessalines, and Henri Christophe, rebel slaves overthrew the French in Haiti and abolished slavery in 1801.

In 1793 Canada abolished the importing of slaves and by 1803 had completely abolished slavery without either having to buy them or having a war about it.

When the Mexican War of Independence began in 1810, Miguel Hidalgo y Costilla declared slavery abolished, but it wasn’t official until the war ended in 1829.

In Argentina, the law stated that those born after January 31, 1813 would be granted freedom when contracting matrimony, or on their 16th birthday for women and 20th for men, and upon their manumission would be given land and tools to work it. In 1853, slavery was completely abolished.

In 1814, Uruguay declared all slaves in their territories free.

Bolivia abolished slavery in 1831.

The British Slavery Abolition Act abolished slavery in their West Indies colonies in 1834.

In 1848, Slavery was abolished in all French and Danish colonies in the West Indies.

Argentina abolished slavery while enacting its Constitution in 1853,

Peru and Venezuela abolished slavery in 1854.

In 1862, Cuba abolished the slave trade.

Only in Gran Colombia (Ecuador, Colombia, Venezuela, Panama) was compensation paid for freed sons and daughters born to slave mothers.

Secondly, economic powers in the southern United States were not interested in ending the institution of industrialized slavery. Their entire economy, culture and lifestyle was based on slavery. Many may have sold their slaves, but many more would not, or would simply relocate and purchase more of them.

At the time, Southerners were seeking to expand the number of slave holding states entering the union. Territory annexed after the Mexican-American war was targeted by them for this purpose. The main reason the northern dominated Congress refused to expropriate more than the 55% of Mexico than The United States did, was to prevent the south from expanding slavery into the deeper reaches of Mexico past Texas, New Mexico and Arizona.

That is why ‘we’ did not do the same.

And that is not the flag of Mississippi. The Mississippi state flag has the ‘stars and bars’ in the upper left corner with a thick blue and a thick white horizontal stripe to its right and one long thick red stripe along the entire bottom beneath everything else. Ron Paul is speaking in front of the Confederate flag.

Tell that to newt g. and rick s.

What if I’m the only store or restaurant open next to a Greyhound Bus station late at night and the respectful skinheads are very hungry and have to use the rest room. I am operating a public accommodation, ‘open to the public.’ The public pays for my Police and Fire Department protection. I suppose you think a privately owned hospital should have the right to refuse to treat people based on race too?

The issue is he is talking out of his butt. He’s either lying or grossly misinformed about that business with every country in this hemisphere buying their way out of slavery. No one’s going to sell their income generating growth assets committed to the future of their family’s inheritance fortune for a paltry one time pay off. Besides, the entire southern economy, culture and lifestyle was made possible and supported by the continuation of industrialized chattel slavery.

That’s because there wasn’t a whole class and culture of beneficiaries willing to fight to the death to preserve the industrialized chattel slavery that upheld their economy and their very way of life like in the American south.

That’s because there wasn’t a whole class and culture of beneficiaries willing to fight to the death to preserve the industrialized chattel slavery that upheld their economy and their very way of life like in the American south.

For a person to display HATE is no friggin’ God to meee……….

I w**rship God, not no MF who don’t like me or my hue or whatever hateful s**t they want to put on people and PERSUADE them to believe HIM………

By citing an abolitionist as siding with the South, Ron Paul is using the illogical framing reference of “argument from authority.” See, if ONE abolitionist thought the South was on the side of right in the Civil War, therefore the South WAS on the side of right.

He disregards the obvious, that the abolitionist he cites was in fact in the WRONG to side with the South, just as Paul himself is in the wrong both morally and historically.

When rights are tied to property and one group owns all the property, who has all the rights? You’re so caught up in your principles that you don’t see how they operate in the real world. HOODWINKED.

The owner of the restaurant should be able to do as he wishes on his own property, granted he doesn’t intentionally inflict physical harm someone else.

Slavery was on its way out. The industrial revolution phased out most slavery around the world. Paul’s point, which is true, is that the slavery was/is used as a political tool for the Civil War. What he’s consistently said is that slavery could have ended without a war that cost over 600,000 lives – many of them also slaves. The only single positive that came out of that war was the end to slavery. However, the entire Constitution and the value for freedom was trampled on. Paul’s point is that the same end could have been achieved through different means.

That’s the biggest BS statement so far.

And there you have it…only a racist would allow themselves to be photographed in front of a confederate flag let alone video taped speaking in front of one!

Still doesn’t justify him standing in front of a Confederate flag.

Like post “whites only” signs? Your logic might work on Stormfront but it won’t fly here.

“Ron Paul is a neo-conservative”

Are you serious? Ron Paul a neo-con? Ron Paul is anti-bailout, anti-income tax, anti- military indrustrial complex, all of the things that the Neo-Cons thrive on.

Do you think any of the neo-cons give a rats a** about the constitution? Ron Paul is so far “to the right” of the neo-cons that permeate the GOP that he appears to be outside the traditional
“conservative model”, when in all reality it is the establishment, “status-quo” Republicans who have moved left of the traditional republican roots..

Watch out GOP, nomination or not for Paul the true conservative wing of the GOP party(the constitutional wing) is rising. We want government out of our lives, we want an end to the patriot act, we want more states rights, we want the end of the bureaucrats tinkering in every corner of our lives.

Doesn’t the fact that lobbyist don’t even bother showing up at Ron’s door say anything? Mitt Romney’s top donaters are all bankers! Goldmann Sachs, Morgan Stanley,

surprisingly enough a lot of his donors are the same people who funded Obama’s campaign. How anyone can look at Romney and see a true Republican is beyond my understanding, have people lost all sense of judgement? Romney has never said anything specific about spending cuts, nothing specific on monetary policy, hell I bet Mitt Romney doesn’t even know what’s Keynesian-ism is, why the housing bubble burst, why the business cycle happens etc. He stands on stage as the media’s frontrunner and, with an admittedly nice smile, spews rhetoric about why “Obama is bad”, which is true, but he never say’s anything specifiic. Romney will loose to Obama, have no doubt about it.

Ron Paul 2012, if you don’t nominate him, don’t count on our 15%-20% of the vote. You know what that means.

WRARRRR

WRARR

i just wrote all of that and then realized that it said “neoconfederate”, not “neoconservative”

Seems to me, as someone who was educated in a different country, and was not taught any of this in high school because it was not relevant.
For the North the war was about preserving the union, and for the South it was about preserving a way way of life i.e. the right to own slaves. Therefore if you took slaves out the equation there would have been no war, which leads me to the conclusion that the war was indeed about slavery.

Ron Paul is an intellectual, and it is unfair to criticize him because he was giving a speech about the political issues at play during the Civil War period. Ron Paul always speaks philosophically and doesn’t “collectivize” people into any groups because that is a lowly form of thinking. This speech was interesting and a good history lecture just like any University professor. I like it and I like Ron Paul because he will restore America and use his economic and historical knowledge to use the Oval Office to grow this economy and fix our dollar.

Powerful.
Thank you very much for this education.

Keep it on Stormfront. Your “race war” threat is welcome there. Not here.

I’m sorry, but the author of this article is in no manner qualified for this discussion. If you can’t leave your bias at the door, you will never understand the topic.

Did you just completely miss where he talked about the abolitionist at the start and how he admired him?

Ron Paul is exactly right as usual.

Every day I see a new racist outrage from Ron Paul’s past. I do not trust him.

CVIL WAR REENACTMENT EVENT. BACKGROUND CUT TO JUST SHOW HIM A FLAG. ANOTHER MISLEADING DISTRACTION.

I’m sorry, but honestly, what exactly needs justification here?

There’s still a lot more to come. He would be wise to drop out of the race now. While his past might play well in the South it’s not going to fly in states like New york and California. Stick a fork in his buttocks….he’s done!

He said that the North could have bought the slaves freedom. FREEDOM. That would have avoided war. Many reputable historians have said the same about the Civil War in relation to the Industrial Revolution and industry of the North versus industry of the South during that time. There are many African Americans who also believe that and have said that they don’t think that White people would have killed each other for the sake of abolishing slavery. This is just another attempt of the media and those who oppose Ron Paul to try and smear his character.

Are there still people who think that the American involvement in the Vietnam War was because of communism in Vietnam being a threat to America?

I see you got neo-confederate Lew Rockwell on your twitter feed. Nice try! Sorry sister, the South shall NOT rise again…not in our lifetime at least.

the article is wrong, he’s not against the North, he is against the civil war entirely….big difference, he’s not saying the South should have won.. he’s saying there should have been no conflict period

Lincoln himself stated that if he could win the war without releasing a single slave he would. People are retarded so don’t even respond to my statement until you do some research.

That was the flag of Georgia up to 2001, he was giving his speech in georgia. Donna, just wow.

Thank you for proving my point that people are retarded.

All Ron Paul is saying is that there were more details to the war than we know. He is very educated on the topic of the “Civil War” and the economics of it. The idea to make this some sort of racist act is a joke. Putting down Ron Paul is like calling Thomas Jefferson a communist. Have you no shame? The man has been consistent for 30 years and one of the biggest things he’s pushed forward in his life are civil rights not being abused, specifically discrimination against african americans and latino americans in the judicial system, he has pushed this more than any other candidate, that’s a fact. This is a joke. Whoever posts this knows the average American won’t know the complete history of the candidate or what this topic is even about. This is an educated speech about the failed economics of a certain era in history.. and to clarify Ron Paul’s logic.. All the money we spent on the Civil War and all the lives that were lost is a third of the price of what the actual cost would have been to purchase to make all slaves free then slowly release the law against slavery, minus the lives lost (considering it was the war with the highest death toll in US history.. and it was brother against brother. Keep in mind the North declared the war when they could have thought it through in the way I just described. A very simple concept. We reflect on these things so we don’t make the same mistakes again. People need to grow up and stop being emotional and narrow minded at the wrong times, especially both together at a specific moment and time. Ron Paul has strong morals and a faith in what made us great and if you have the education of a middle school student on what truly being conservative is you would know he is by far the most. Please people open your eyes. It’s obvious we can beat a president who inflicts concepts on a free society that lead it down a path of destruction, but to pick a president that can not only restore our country but point it down a path to greatness a free path, an open path, a safe and secure yet unbeaten path that I call freedom. A path that holds limitless potential and allows us the people to work together for the better good at our pace and by our own hand.

There is alot more to it than that.

There were states that had slavery in the north at the start of the war, and during the war. Lincolns famous emancipation proclamation didn’t free the slaves in the north. What it did was free any slaves in the states that were rebelling. He did it solely for an advantage in the war, and slaves in the north stayed slaves. Lincoln once said he had no intention of freeing the slaves, he merely done it to make slavery the bigger issue and to hurt southern support(I contend that Lincolns good banking sense had the most effect, while the south was relying on foreign bankers)

States rights were being trampled on before the war, and also in terms of the other direction. Where northern states which had abolished slavery were forced to return slaves to the south and so on.

No doubt the south wanted to keep slavery, as did some of the northern states, but to simply wipe it all away as “slavery” is to ignore many deeper issues about the proper role of government. They had corruption in government as well. Lincoln for example was involved in land grabs via government in order to run railroads through areas.

But that is exactly what people do. They dismiss the entire thing as being about slavery, and every other issue is ignored. And if anyone even talks about the other issues, and the rights and wrongs about government of the time – they get labeled like this article has here. Even despite the very start of the clip honoring an abolitionist in order to try and point out that he was not in favor of slavery and there were other issues involved.

Gangs are all bad and hurt innocent people. It goes beyond the color of a man’s skin. They prey on anyone who is not in the gang. There are so many good people in this world and I believe that Ron Paul is one of them. Peace not war; Love not hate; Freedom not slavery. We have all become slaves of the State; the big centralized government that sits in Washington D.C.

Gangs are all bad and hurt innocent people. It goes beyond the color of a man’s skin. They prey on anyone who is not in the gang. There are so many good people in this world and I believe that Ron Paul is one of them. Peace not war; Love not hate; Freedom not slavery. We have all become slaves of the State; the big centralized government that sits in Washington D.C.

Donna give up, hes standing in front of the flag of Georgia prior to the year 2001. Your for corrupt and bias media

Donna give up, hes standing in front of the flag of Georgia prior to the year 2001. Your for corrupt and bias media

And he’s explaining his support for the South!

And he’s explaining his support for the South!

Probably because the south isn’t trying to rise again. I have it on good authority that the British aren’t coming either.

Who cares? Get over it. Check it out – when you’re in line at the gas station waiting for hours to pay $9.00 a gallon for rationed fuel or $9.00 for a gallon of milk – you can tell the guy in front of you “Well, at least we don’t have that racist Ron Paul in the White House.” You know, the one candidate who knows how to save this economy from completely collapsing. You all don’t believe it will happen. But it will. And guess who’s going to feel it the most? Blacks and other minorities. Explain that to your kids when you can’t get them milk.

I’d vote for Louis Farrakhan or the Grand Wizard of the KKK if either of them had a handle on this economy. They would wear their racism on the outside where I can see it – rather than the political majority that keep their racism close to the vest where I cannot see it.

Ron Paul is not as unique as you’d have us believe.

Are you really so racially charged that a person can’t even talk about the history of the Civil War and the good and bad parts about it without seeing someone as racist?

This is the same kind of ignorance that says people are anti-American because they question our foreign policy.

Maybe YOU are the only one who is incapable of having an intelligent discourse about the events of the civil war.

Where the hell are you getting this crap? Race war?

Where was it that anyone mentioned a “Threat of a race war”? Maybe you should be the one heading over to stormfront, as far as I can tell you are the only one speaking of a race war.

Are you so brainwashed by this geezer that you can’t admit this video and what he’s saying makes him look bad? Do you honestly think the mainstream media isn’t going to spin this ? You’re fighting a losing battle. I sure hope you haven’t given him too much of your lunch money.

This is false because he didn’t use the abolitionist as an authority, but rather to emphasize the issues were not just about slavery, and that he didn’t support slavery.

I can’t tell if Donna is playing dumb for the sake of trolling or if she really is just “simple”.

This magazine is irrealavant and making a mockery of all intelligent Blacks. It literally does nothing but hurl chants of racism at Ron Paul. Grow up you disgust me. You don’t want to be on the wrong side when the s**t hits the fan and you obvioulsy are towing the status quo line. You’ve been warned.

Here’s a direct quote from Stormfront today:
“Ron Paul is the beginning, if he can be made president, what he will do is buy us a little time and open the gates for even more “radical” candidates-perhaps not David Duke, but the David Duke of the future. We will have to make “radical” changes, and build our numbers during this time. In this time we will have to strengthen our relationship with our racial compatriots in Europe and around the world. Then eventually we will be able to launch a reconquista of our own.”
Maybe you should take your arguments over to stormfront-I’m sure they will welcome a bright mind like yours!

Article wriiten by Gane-McCalla, go figure.

Properties do not have rights, only people do.

The term property rights is merely the recognition that the rights of the person extends to the property they own. I can not come and take your shoes, because of property rights. You own them, they are your property, your rights are extended to those shoes.

That some people falsely claimed things as being their property in the past in no manner means property rights are invalid, any more than if I falsely claim your shoes are mine does. You fix the error in what is property, not the rights.

It is amazing to me that people actually believe the term property rights actually suggests that property itself has rights. It’s even more amazing that you at the same time talking about how they “operate in the real world”, and that people are being hoodwinked.

He agrees with ending slavery.. He says it should have been ended then the slaves bought and freed to prevent the war and save over600k American lives.. sounds pretty reasonable to me! Ron Paul 2012

Evidently this “journalist” forgot that Lincoln didn’t want to free the slaves, he simply had to in order to keep the union together. He fought against slavery because the North represent the majority opinion of social progress. Yeah guess the author of this article neglected to bring up THAT fact. Paul is merely criticizing the mandate wee set up as it has not dispelled racial prejudice, in some cases it has only engendered more animosity between collective groupings based on skin color. Good job at covering both sides of the argument Casey; oh in case you’ve forgotten the basics of rhetoric, THAT is sarcasm.

“South that started the war by attacking the North in 1861.”

When the South seceded the North kept troops in the south, starting a long American tradition of using soldiers as pawns to occupy and agitate.

Who started is a matter of perspective, but civilized people tend to leave your home when asked.

You shouldn’t be made to serve them unless you wanted to. It’s not perfect, but it’s freedom.

I would personally rather people put their racism on the front porch so I don’t give them business. But I seriously doubt that is going to happen even without the law.

The problem in the south was segregation was forced by law. So everyone had to do it, which means there were no economic repercussions because nobody could offer an alternative. Getting rid of those laws in the Civil Rights act was good and a proper job of the federal government. But they went a tiny bit too far.

Thie bases of this story is factually wrong “the South attacked north” . It was an invasion force of 14 warships including 2500 marines about troop ships outside Charston that started war. Or if you wish the first actual shot was fired Jan 9, 1861 in Pennsacola, FL. Or if if you knew an invasion by the Star-of-the-West US ship with invasion troops aboard that was fired upon and hit by Citadel cadets Jan 1861 forcing it back.

That’s the thing! If I opened a restaurant and placed a “whites only” sign. No-one would go to my restaurant. It would get egged, media bullied etc. Without laws restricting property rights my restaurant would fail because of public opinion.

History is written by the winner. Believe what you are taught at your own peril.

The only person running in the presidential race (including Obama) speaking openly about how blacks and other minorities are disproportionately arrested, convicted and incarcerated compared to whites “is racist”. The only candidate running for high office who would even dare to bring up the very idea that non-violent drug offenders (mostly minorities) should get a full Presidential Pardon so they can be reunited with their families and be provided with medical treatment for their addictions “is racist”. Give me a break!

He speaks of these things to a predominately white Republican audience within a former slave state.. He has been speaking of these particular problems with our American Judicial system for years.

I have never been to Storm front’s website but it seems to me you, fittingly are a regular.

Further, imposed unConstitutional income taxes to pay for his war. It was only after his death the US Supreme Court ruled them unConstitutional. Also look up what he supported to ship ALL blacks out of the country. He sent letters to ALL Southern governors supporting Corwin Amendment (the originally 13th amend) to make slavery PERMANANT! He also supported Morill Tariff to protect northern industry and raise revenue by punishing South. Tariff(ta) went from 20% to nearly 50%. And y’all yanks keep telling us war was about freeing slaves?

And to clarify Ron Paul agreed with removing the racist laws

I’d say you just got trolled

I have no interest in what some delusional racist group has to say.

People in the south don’t even like them.

You’re looking for something that’s not there. Enough with the racist crap, the people who write this are more racist than anyone. Paul’s policies would effectively neuter institutionalized racism like the War on Drugs. Don’t see anyone else willing to do that.

In the spring of 1861 the Confederate forces wanted the North out of Charleston S.C. One Union Soldier died from a cannon fired from the Union side as salute they were leaving. Most of the southern states had already succeeded from the Union before this accident occurred. Less we try to make our own History from it, The North was quite content to have slaves also, New England States had a huge Slave trade as well as most Union States. So both sides were disgusting to enslave Man for their own Profits, But tell me hasn’t our Government found a legal way to continue slavery to some degree, via Federal Reserve, Debt, Welfare, IRS. Just saying…

“Are you so brainwashed by this geezer that you can’t admit this video and what he’s saying makes him look bad? Do you honestly think the mainstream media isn’t going to spin this ? You’re fighting a losing battle. I sure hope you haven’t given him too much of your lunch money. ”

IT’S HISTORY. It’s not a matter of opinion, it’s a matter of history. What is so hard to understand?

His point that the North should have bought the slaves from the South, is a reasonable one. The alternative, that hundreds of thousands should die fighting and the country brought to the verge of economic and political collapse, when it could’ve been settled with the simple exchange of money, is a fairly stupid one.

Confederate flag = slavery and racism. This is supposed to pass for intelligence?

@donna stevens

I understood u are servant of newt gingrich who made racial comments only recently…, that blacks have to demand pay checks and not food stamps…, what do u & ur master think of yourselves…, u speak badly about obama every single time even when obama does right…,comeon raise above cheap politics …., of course u cannot because everyone in presidential race is better than gingrich….,

look i am an independent…, i favor ron paul (exceptional family man + consistent voting record as conservative + true convictions + courage to do something to the country + military veteran patriot + anti unnecessary wars)

then i favor obama ( current president + decent patriot + anti war + good orator + good family man) negatives ( not a conservative but a big spender + no courage to speak truth like ron paul)

then i favor mitt romney ( good business man + good family man + moderate stance on everything) negatives ( no consistency + no core + very similar to obama + more pro war than obama but anyway beauracratic person)

then i favor rick santorum (good family man + social conservative + second most consistent after paul although i dont agree with his views) negatives ( too much hawkish foreign policy+ somewhat short temper + fiscal conservativeness average, cannot solve economy problems)

so ur newt gingrich came in last …, i cannot even think of positives , negatives ( adulterer,lobbyist, utter disrespect for blacks, no human values in personal life becoz he gets rid of his wives when they fall sick,doesnt follow what he preaches) come on what does he have?…., he & callista– a one time mistress– are unfit for the white house…,

Please research before you write, this is just embarrassing. First, the Ludwig Von Mises institute’s sole purpose is to influence monetary policy. They are strong advocates of Austrian economics, critics of Keysian, and their namesake comes from one of the most renowned economists of the twentieth century. But you haven’t heard of him or you would know he is from the wrong continent to be a Confederate. If you understood the difference in the southern State’s agricultural economy (commodity based) in the nineteenth century and the Northern States industrial economy, or the Southern Democrats’ staunch oppisition towards a central bank (And all banking: many heavily Democrat States originally ratified Constitutions that made banking illegal), versus the Northern Whigs embrace of an investor class, you wouldn’t call a classical liberal from Austria ‘neo-confederate’. On the more touchy subject of the Civil War: Yes the Confederate States were within their Constitutional rights to secede from the Union. The divide that lead up to the Civil War was about the expansion of Slavery as new states entered the Union, not abolition. Economics issues also played a big role, fueled by crashes, depressions, and periods of rampant inflation, due in large part to the business cylces of the North. The North declared war on the South in order to restore the Union, not end slavery, and consequently 600,000 Americans lost their lives. (That’s like losing upwards of 10 million of today’s population.) Many historians, and the majority of Americans after the war, feel this tragedy could have been avoided. Yes, under great political pressure from entering a costly and long war, President Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation. Not at the onset, but after it was clear the South would soon collapse financially…. I would love to tell you about reconstruction too, but I’m tired. YOU’RE WELCOME!

ps – How does it feel to owe so much for your education and know so little? GED over here. Ron Paul 2012 B***hes!

“Secession” many neo-Confederates openly advocate the resecession of the Southern states and territories which comprised the old Confederate States of America. The League of the South, for example, promotes the “independence of the Southern people” from the “American empire”. Most neo-Confederate groups do not seek violent revolution, but rather an orderly separation, such as was done in the division of Czechoslovakia. Many Neo-Confederate groups have prepared for what they view as a possible collapse of the federal United States into its 50 separate states, much like the Soviet Union collapsed, and believe the Confederacy can be resurrected at that time. The Civil Rights Movement neo-Confederates adopt a paleoconservative or libertarian view of the Civil Rights Movement. Some Neo-Confederates view the Civil War as a conflict between a secular North and a Christian South. Certain Neo-Confederates believe in a Celtic identity theory for residents of the South, with residents of the North being mostly English. So as the South may ask to succeed again and the North will hold them as slaves to a society it wishes not to associate with.

The core of his supporters are young, and they aren’t dying anytime soon. He has planted a seed and created a legacy that will live well beyond his candidacy, and you will unfortunately witness his influence for years to come. He has changed the political landscape and caused a more significant effect on American politics than any recent American politician, including Obama.

You won’t have to keep seeing this particular “kooky” old man / media punching bag, but you will continue to see his viewpoints and influence. If Romney becomes president, there will be nothing out of the ordinary or significant about his presidency. He doesn’t promise that much, and he won’t deliver that much. People won’t forget Paul, even if he had some flaws or misguided statements and beliefs. The way he made people stop and reconsider things is what is significant. Even his rivals have adopted some of his views, and this shows that his influence has already started.

God I hope so.

This should put an end to all of the black people supporting Ron Paul.

FYI The idea of compensating slave owners for emancipation was popular prior to the Civil War. Even Abraham Lincoln considered it as an option. Remember the Dred-Scott decision, as rendered by the Supreme Court, declared slaves not to be citizens of any sort but rather property. Compensation in that light makes sense.

Associating Dr. Paul with racism truly makes no sense at all. Before writing such a simplistic article the author should read some of Paul’s writings on the topic. It is way more complicated than a confederate flag. Finding out WHY he votes the way he does would seem like a reasonable thing to do and would take very little effort.

So you have no editor?

“Slavery was on its way out?” What, was it a fad? What are you talking about?

Owning slaves was owning free money. You owned human beings that you could legally order to do anything in the whole wide world except to kill, injure, or offend a fellow of your own ‘people-owning’ class.

Do you know how much money a person could make by being able to force just one person to do some s**t you don’t want to do? You wouldn’t have to go to work. Get the slave a job. Need some extra cash? Rent out a slave. Ask a pimp about it.

So what you’re telling me is that a bunch of very rich and powerful Southern families – some of them entrenched for more than two centuries, possessed with what they feel is a sacred duty, to pass down their family fortunes, along with their legacies and honorable names – would be willing to give all up without a fight when offered a measly one time payment for their slaves?

Nay, Capitalism does not work like that. With each of the family’s generations growing up and multiplying, the number of slaves they owned increased exponentially, as did the family fortune. That is why Southern businessmen and lawmakers were fiercely scheming to bring more slave states into the union, including the newly occupied territories seized in the Mexican-American war in 1848.

Rather than to hasten the demise of slavery in the American south, The Industrial Revolution gave the slave industry a tremendous boost. When Eli Whitney patented his mechanical cotton gin in 1794, demand for more cotton and more slaves skyrocketed.

The property value of individual slaves increased after the very last ship to bring slaves to the United States arrived in Alabama in 1857. And the Dred Scott decision by the. Supreme Court held, that a slave did not become free when taken into a free state, Congress could not bar slavery from a territory, and blacks could not be citizens. There were 3,953,696 slaves in the United States in 1859. The total number of slave owners was 385,000. This does not look like a business model “on its way out.”

You say “the only single positive that came out of that war was the end to slavery,” as if it were the most insignificant problem or issue a person could have. You don’t think one group of your fellow Americans forcibly holding another group of your fellow Americans in captivity for forced labor, or any other purposes, under threat of severe violence or death is worth having a war about?

What kind of master of irony are you EmbraceTheTruth? That you could speak reverently of “the entire Constitution” and indignant about “the value for freedom” being trampled upon, at the same time you’re trivializing the necessity to fight for freedom against slavery, and downplaying the urgency of immediate release from tyranny.

CRA is unConstitutional as it gives special privaliges to certain people but of course only punishes South. Of course certain people cannot give up that special treatment and money that goes with it.

It’s amazing how racist crackers ALWAYS get behind racist candidates!

AND IGNORANT NEGROIDS ARE JUST LIKE ZOMBIES AND MUMMIES…FOLLOWING THEM TO THE GRAVE!

FUK ALL THESE RACIST BASTARDS AND THE DUMB ASS NEGROIDS, WHO FOLLOW THEM AND VOTE FOR THEM!!!!

The video is thought provoking, and there is nothing wrong with critiquing the Civil War. Paul also clearly is supportive of the abolitionist movement to end slavery. 600,00 people died in the civil war, and the Federal Government committed all sorts of war crimes (like Sherman’s march) that left lasting scars. Obviously it didn’t cure the nation’s racial problems as much as it reinforced them for over a century. Meanwhile, all other nations eliminated slavery peacefully.

No one is “entitled” to be on anyones private property. The only access to private property is with the property owners permision or government warrant signed by a judge.

So should his National Press Secretary quit now? He’s black. Or doesn’t he count?

It takes a bit of intelligence to understand Paul’s stand on these issues, but his stand is not one of racist intent. His assertion that the civil war need not have been fought is correct. Other nations ended slavery without war. This article is a very badly written and thought out piece trying to smear Dr. Paul. His stand on the civil rights act is that one small section of it is wrong. It attacks property rights. If the author knew anything about this subject – which he/she obviously doesn’t – he’d realize this article is just a hack hit piece done by an ignorant and small minded drone not capable of understanding the issues.

if AND WHEN a pic surfaces of Ron Paul in a KKK robe standing next to David Duke in front of a picture of Hitler, Bullet Gibson would find a way to justify it! UNBELIEVABLE!!

BUT the problem w/private property owners & Jim Crow laws, their businesses were in GOVERNMENT facilities and on PUBLIC ROADS where blacks paid taxes but were treated the same as Jews were in Auschwitz, Poland, Austria and wherever else Nazi’s decided to ostracize Jews while their U.S. counterpart did the same w/ non-whites and Jews who were also taxpayers

THESE PRIVATE PROPERTIES were also PLACES OF VOTING!! not to mention, blacks were lynched for not obeying simple rules as “use the back entrance n****r!!”

I personally wouldn’t want to be around a racist sommabish! put your whites only sign up and I won’t spend my money. but if your store is the MAIN store in the town, as was the case in Jim Crow: PROBLEM

whites have their own private clubs still, so quit your b***hing about not being allowed to do this! we also have streets named after known Klansmen and KKK-rapists: James Henry Hammond yet the racist bigot is STILL claiming unfairness

and the difference between skinheads coming to a black restaurant and A TUSKEGEE AIRMEN GOING INTO A PRO-JIM CROW WHITE-OWNED RESTAURANT during Jim Crow: ONE WOULD BE LYNCHED, the others would be served TODAY and if they decide to ask all Hitler-ish and harass customers they’d be asked to leave and KICKED OUT, and by a white cop who’d be just as disgusted by them as the rest of the world is

hey, what do Nazi’s and Confederates have in common: a WHACKED flag and both got their asses kicked BUT still think they’re superior. I guess they don’t read memo’s but we know they definitely GOT THE MEMO!!

and shoutout to all the interracial couples! nothing kills Confederates and Nazi’s more hehe

I find it a little hypocritical that this web site is so obsessed with branding its perceive political competitors as “racists” when it’s slogan is “NewsOne for black America” and all the columnists listed on this site just happen to be all black.

let the shoe had been on the other foot: whites enslaved, then slavery ended but non-whites THEN created GOVERNMENT funded and sponsored Jim Crow where whites (who were also taxpayers) were refused service, lynched, tortured and more AND while told they couldn’t date non-whites (oh lawd what would NBA, NFL AND MLB wives do??!!), let’s see how quickly you’d defend a BLACK RON PAUL!!

There the idiots go again making it the glorified story of the North being “good” and the south being “evil.” They growed up with der’ momma and daddy tellin’ dem’ the north be heroes and they saved black people everywhere. <—I'm obviously mocking…

Well when i first saw Mr. Paul standing at that podium in front of that confederate flag, i thought you had a smoking gun here, so to speak.

But when i watch the speech, I don’t see any racism unless I look deeply (which may or may not be “too deeply”) into it.

I do see a man who is pandering to a probably racist crowd, however.

I am impressed with Mr. Paul’s liberty-leaning voting record in Congress despite my disagreement with him on issues of social welfare funding.

If he were truly racist, and voted in a racist manner, then I’d nearly hate the man.

What in the world are you talking about? No one is “entitled” to enter my property.

NewsOne doesn’t care about Black people. They just want to race-bait and accentuate all the racial tensions. This is not a real news outlet.

I don’t agree. I’d probably serve regardless of the people’s beliefs or backgrounds, but if someone who’s been discriminated against chose not to serve likely racists, they ought to have that right.

No, his logic wouldn’t work on Stormfront, because the concept of colorblindness and equal rights is totally lost on them.

Like Lysander Spooner?

You are all intelligent enough to know that you are purposely misrepresenting Ron Paul and what he stands for. Knee-jerkers just won’t understand that all war is about power and profits; humanitarian causes are secondary. History is written (rewritten) by the winners and lull the masses by promoting the latter.

All of these well known MSM bloggers to the right of this comment are wearing the golden handcuffs of the insanely rich and power-motivated masters of big money. They really believe in their biases. Take a good look at them because they are not on your side, they are on the side of the dollars that are going into their bank accounts.

Win or lose, Ron Paul’s ideology is disseminating among the young and intelligent (rowdy followers don’t hurt either); their understanding and beliefs of these truths will prevail. The old power-mongering people manipulators will die along with their lies. The MSM bloggers with golden handcuffs will be an island of mistrust.

I always believed that slavery was on the way out because of the industrial age. Unfortuantely it is not politically correct to note that slavery was the only form of labor for eons. One of the horrors of freedom for the blacks was when they were free, they starved because the South had been destroyed. That was when Lincoln should have initiated a welfare system to help them in their transition. When the schools were integrated, it should have been started with kindergarten where the children had no prejudice and could grow together. Unfortuantely, the kids of all ages and races were thrown together and bedlam was the result the first few years. I know – I was there. If you have ever traveled the South and seen all the memorials to the Civil War dead, like Vicksburg, you will have your eyes opened; because the War should have been avoided. It stripped the South of its wealth, and improvished and neglected the very people that the war was supposed to be about. IMHO the Civil War was not about slavery, it was about envy and fear – the South was too getting to powerful and rich – and had to be halted. That was the very same reason we entered WWI – jealously of Germany’s wealth and power. Do we ever learn? Dr Paul, I love you.

I believe this site constantly post topics on Ron Paul for several reasons and they are as follows:

1) Ron Paul brings massive views and hits to this site.

2) NewsOne see Ron Paul as a viable threat to Obama because of the Independents that would vote for him since they seem to feel that Black people shouldn’t have the right to choose to vote as Blacks want to because they like most Obamabots feel Blacks owe the half White Obama their vote.

3) Same old bullshyt tactic of brainwashing Blacks to not vote for anyone who is not a Democrat because anyone that isn’t a Democrat is viewed as racists by these deceivers….

“Independent and still not voting for Obama”………

How can the poster think Paul is not a racist? The SOUTH started the war, they clearly initiated hostilities because they were angry at the Northern States not honoring the Dred Scott decision, which made it a crime to not return fleeing slaves. Just read S.Car. articles of war, and you will see that Slavery was FRONT AND CENTER of the Southern reason for INITIATING hostilities. No matter what sort of hokey-poo Dr. Paul has to offer, the SOUTH started the war, the SOUTH attacked Washington, the SOUTH attacked Ft. Sumter.

This guy Ron Paul is the only potential one in the GOP that could beat Obama by taking votes from him. The GOP Party is so stupid they talk about how they don’t agree with Ron Paul’s foreign policies. He is the only one that has the right philosophy with foreign policy. If Ron Paul does not win the GOP nomination, Obama will be our president for another four years.

Maybe you should join with Paul and the other Texas traitors and start referring to Slavery as the “Atlantic Triangular Trade,” and stop calling them “slaves,” but instead, like in the new text books created by Paul’s constituents, call them “Atlantic Triangular Trade workers.” Also, your history is a little screwed up…the SOUTH attacked the NORTH, not the other way around, and they laid waste to northern Virginia and attacked Washington. In fact, the North wasn’t even AWARE it was at war for almost two years. Talk about REVISIONIST HISTORY.

It’s not pandering…it’s CODE. Code that only racists hear, and others can blithely ignore. How do you figure that voting against the Civil Rights Act, being against anti-discrimination enforcement and being against unions doesn’t make Paul a racist?

At heart Ron Paul is a good guy. He talks about the same things that got got Kennedy, our last real president, assassinated. Why do you think he gets like 2 to 3 questions in each debate as opposed to like 20 to 25 for Gingrich and Romney???? He talks about the stuff they don’t want you to hear.

“putting him on the side of the racists in both the fight against slavery and the fight against Jim Crow segregation” ….
Interesting way to avoid saying Ron Paul WAS and IS for repealing Jim Crow laws (it doesn’t fit your biased article).

You are a fool and your logic is flawed in more ways than you will ever realize. There are literally hundreds of thousands, and perhaps millions of confederate flags hanging on walls public and private in the south. I’m from Maine and I’ve even seen my fair share of confederate flags up here. You assuming Ron Paul is a racist for standing in front of a flag and giving a historically accurate speech is about as justified as someone believing you’re in the sixth grade because you’re poorly educated and childishly intolerant. Standing in front of a flag? That’s all you’ve got? I’m glad you don’t support Ron Paul. We don’t need your kind to make this happen anyway.

“Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. “-Alexander Stephens, Vice President of The Confederacy

Nothing about that speech says he’s racist. The whole thing is about cost. Both side started the war. The day it started, it was just supposed to be a fist fight. Wives were sitting on the side of the battle ground with lunches and stuff.

So if someone challenges your historical “facts” on the Civil War, they are “racist”? That is pretty lame.

No when people make up new facts denying obvious evidence, it’s racist. Revisionist history is silly and was created to make white southerners feel better about their history.

You should be ashamed of yourself. All he is saying is that there was a better way to solve the issue rather than go to war. At no point does he support slavery at all.

You are missing the point on Dr. Paul’s view points. He believes that the South was right in the Civil War because according to the Constitution states have the right to secede from the Union. As a Libertarian there is no way he can support the institution of slavery since he believes in all people being able to exercise their civil rights equally. As far as the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Dr. Paul would have voted against it because it infringed too far into an individual’s right on their private property. The government forcing a restaurant or a business to accept certain people does not make the person who owns that property less racist, it probably just creates more tension between the races. This does not mean Dr. Paul thinks that discrimination against blacks is a good thing, but he believes in the rights of individuals to control their private property as they see fit. He does believe though that a morally strong person would not discriminate against someone and that this country does need more moral people.

Ron Paul is not a racist at all. He just might not want to go to war with Iran and the let the army loose with their toys if he got into office and thats too much right????
Iran is a mirror image of Iraq like 10 years ago, and I will always side with Ron Paul, because unlike Obama and these other GOP candidates, he had the foresight to vote against that war, and he would have the foresight to vote against a war with Iran as well.
There is something admirable about a 70 something year old man that should be relaxing at home in retirement, but who cares enough about his country to speak out regarding what he believes in and run for president.

ou should be ashamed of your self tricking black voters like that. This website is deceiving its readers with garbage and half truths/lies. True uncle Toms!

That is the problem, we invent rights that don’t exist and trample ones that do. YOU DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO ENTER ANY PRIVATELY OWNED ESTABLISHMENT. There no entitlement to sit down in a restaurant. Where is that in the constitution? The only person in that scenario who has any real rights is the property/business owner. Why is this so hard for people to understand?

LOLOL What is funny is that Ron Paul is probably the only GOP candidate that is not racist.

Yes, like post Whites Only signs. Wake up Donna, are we only free as long as we are inoffensive? This long slow march we are making away from freedom in the name of everybody get along, nobody can ever be offended is very scary. Before you call me racist, my father is black.

Personally, I don’t agree with him that the US goverment could have bought the freedom of 3.9+ million slaves and ended it. However, they could have used a combination of laws prohibiting moving slaves across state lines, mandating that slaves entering free states became free (due to crossing state lines, challanging the SOCTUS ruling), Prohibiting classing a person as a slave due to race (that would have thrown a monkey wrench in things), legal remedies and direct payouts. All of which could have been accomplished with far less than 600,000 dead.

The civil war was NOT about slavery. Slavery was a tinderbox issue of the time that was co-opted into being used for support for the war (on both sides). If it would have been more politicaly expedient to NOT free slaves during the way, Lincoln would not have done it. In fact he did NOT free the slaves in Union states – he only freed those in Confederate states (look it up).

As to the south starting the war – partially true: the south fired the opening shots. However it was political manuvering on both sides from people who wanted a war that started it. In the south, the Confederacy realised they had little industrial capacity and that a war, if it needed to be fought, was best fought immediately. They also wanted concessions from the Union. The Union, on the other hand, did not want the US split up and realised that allowing the seccession would result in a long term decrease in federal power, but the idea of going to war was not popular even with abolishonists.

Luckily (sarcasm) there was an easy solution: The Confederacy made demands of the Union that they knew would not be accepted (abandoning not only military forts, bases and federal buildings and land, but also any and all equipment within the south – they expected Union soldiers to leave with nothing but their clothes). The Union easily refused and then went a step further by refusing to leave the military forts. The area was thus primed for war, waiting for the first shot to set it off. Personally I’ll bet that if the Confederacy had won there would be convincing proof that the Union had fired the first shots – as was said, the winner gets to write the history books.

The Civil Rigths Act, like most laws, has good and bad parts. It’s always tough to come up with viable alternatives that “could have” been implemented instead years later. It’s also an exercise in futility. It was passed, done, finished – you can’t change history. The fact he voted against it means less than his reasons WHY he voted against it.

A web site that only employs black columnists and has as its slogan “NewsOne for black America” labels others “racists”? A bit hypocritical, don’t you think?

Poor white people pissed off they have to treat black people humanely. Damn. So you guys would have been completely happy with black people still riding in the back of the bus and being denied jobs based on skin color. How stupid and racist.

I guess to save my country Im gonna have to get a racist in the White House. perhaps with Obama out MSNBC and the rest of the dying TV media will finally STFU about racism

Ron Paul is about as racist as Organized Religion

No it wouldn’t and at the time of the Civil Rights Act, it would have been the norm in many southern states. Those restaurants prospered and were enjoyed by many whites who didn’t give a damn about denying black people, and had they not been “forced” to allow blacks, they would still be whites only and you and other racists would be so happy to frequent those establishments.

Your father failed you. You can be racist and horribly misguided and still be black. I’ve met many sad negroes like you and Herman Cain.

That’s just the thing… IMO skinheads are NEVER respectable. They are bigots and if someone wants to kick them out of their restaurant they can it is THEIR restaurant. A restaurant does not belong to the public – it belongs to the OWNER. The owner can serve who they want, when they want, and how they want as long as they aren’t getting people sick. But we live in an information age and if you are going to kick people out of your restaurant, you’d better be prepared to pay the consequences. Kick black patrons out? You’re on YouTube, the local news, and Al Sharpton is picketing your restaurant. And guess what? That is fair! You’re gonna be shut down or you’re gonna change your ways. That’s freedom. What YOU are talking about is forcing your worldview on people. That’s tyranny. Sorry.

So it’s ok for the property owner to infringe upon the human rights of others. Property rights is more important than human rights. Got it. I wonder where this private business is getting their water, the sidewalks in front of the business and the road that leads the patrons there. Oh that’s right, the government, in part funded by the same people he’s denying.

What privileges does it give. Name one.

Well the south shouldn’t have attacked the north or there wouldn’t have been a war. They struck first protecting their “way of life”.

Ron Paultards are delusional, psycho, and have obviously never taken a class in economics. Quit reading Ayn Rand, and live in reality.

Here’s the hypothetical that troubles me: What if the Federal government, with the support of a certain region of the country (ie, the North), creates legislation that actually is dangerous (NDAA could be the first step to something like this).

It is clear that the states, according to our founders and our constitution, have the right to withdraw from the union. It was one of the features of our government that the founders wished to emphasize most. However, as a result of the Civil War, we now have a precedent for the federal government being able to violently coerce states to remain in the union.

At the core of Paul’s argument about the Civil War is that there was a better way that would’ve led to FAR fewer lives being lost. Is it worth hundreds of thousands of lives — the vast majority of them non-slave owning and poor — to end slavery a year or two before it would’ve been ended anyway? It’s a difficult question, and I’m not quite sure where I stand on it — but it is not as simple as some of you anti-Paul folks make it sound.

With regard to the Civil Rights Act, I am more conflicted about that. I will say this about Paul: Is it so bad that we have a candidate who believes so much in freedom that he risks his popularity and looking to many like a bigot because he chooses to consistently and perfectly apply the rule of law?

No one else is as consistent. Maybe no one in the modern political era. You always know what you will get with Dr. Paul. There is some value to that, if you ask me.

History is also revised by the loser quite often, which has been the case with the Civil War.

Here’s the hypothetical that troubles me: What if the Federal government, with the support of a certain region of the country (ie, the North), creates legislation that actually is dangerous (NDAA could be the first step to something like this).

It is clear that the states, according to our founders and our constitution, have the right to withdraw from the union. It was one of the features of our government that the founders wished to emphasize most. However, as a result of the Civil War, we now have a precedent for the federal government being able to violently coerce states to remain in the union.

At the core of Paul’s argument about the Civil War is that there was a better way that would’ve led to FAR fewer lives being lost. Is it worth hundreds of thousands of lives — the vast majority of them non-slave owning and poor — to end slavery a year or two before it would’ve been ended anyway? It’s a difficult question, and I’m not quite sure where I stand on it — but it is not as simple as some of you anti-Paul folks make it sound.

With regard to the Civil Rights Act, I am more conflicted about that. I will say this about Paul: Is it so bad that we have a candidate who believes so much in freedom that he risks his popularity and looking to many like a bigot because he chooses to consistently and perfectly apply the rule of law?

No one else is as consistent. Maybe no one in the modern political era. You always know what you will get with Dr. Paul. There is some value to that, if you ask me.

*Oh, and don’t attempt to respond with some bull s**t about Storm Front to me. I was adopted by a black family and lived with them most of my childhood. I understand pretty well the condition of blacks in America.

Hey listen I’m a “black person” and I AGREE with Ron Paul on this issue about slavery 100%. The 1861-65 war was not about slavery or a altruistic loving government that wanted to free us black people. It just wasn’t. Now there were amazing abolitionists WHO WHERE altruistic and give their lives to end slavery and I nor our nation would be where we are at today if not for their bravery. They are heroes. But we as a nation need to get more educated about history. I know what people are taught in school and believe and it’s a very sensitive issue because of this. I respect that, but the facts aren’t true.. Just a few years before Lincoln’ civil war, in 1832 we almost had a separate Civil War over the Nullification Crisis. In a nut shell South Carolinians felt federal tariffs were unfair and benefited parts of new England over them. Only because of quick thinking of Andrew Jackson (old hickory) a civil war was avoided. Now I’m not naive and I know people are very racist and such. But I don’t let those people run my live and get me emotional. I pity them more than anything. As long as the laws are just and I can live my life I don’t’ want to get involved with those types.. Why give them so much power? Hey I know there are likely racist people on this post who hate me just because I was born. but why should I care so much about them? I have enough personal self esteem where I don’t care about them. Slavery in this country could be ended by purchasing the slaves and giving them their freedom. That would have been the best solution and it worked in other nations who had slavery. . Govt can’t make people like one another. Govt benefited the most by slavery. From ancient Nubia, then ancient Egypt, then Rome, European serfdom and even similar things today. Slavery has taken different types. Because basically people want cheap labor.

What reputable historians. Libertarian leaning asswipes who want to pretend the Civil War was a war of “Northern Aggression”?

Dude, that’s just the point… we WOULDN’T be and we’d shut the damn bus line down!

So Darrell because a small subset of the black population would benefit, it makes him not racist? Really?

You sound bats**t crazy.

You might want to check the context of that photograph. And also realize that flag doesn’t stand for slavery – but then again, you won’t catch me flying one either. But I did once have a set of white sheets for my bed… Got rid of them though, because I didn’t want people to think I was racist.

No you wouldn’t. From the end of slavery all the way into the 1960s the bus line wasn’t shut down. You had almost 100 years to do so. When would it have stopped on it’s own?

As a Minority, I must debunk your claims.

“Ron Paul is a neo-Confederate”, No he is not, never once has he made that claim, this is a rather silly accusation which holds nothing on water. Ron Paul is an American, During an interview with Bill Maher, he believed that the slaves could have been bought, which would have never lead to the outbreak of the civil war, which cost more money and lives than any other conflict in U.S. history.

“Ludwig Von Mises Institute, which has been labeled as a neo-Confederate organization.” By whom? And if so, what evidence do they have? This “Neo-confederate institute” is an economic organization that produces a theory on economics called “Austrian economics”. There is not even a hint of confederate relations in that organization, that claim is either a lie, or misinformation, I have plenty of evidence to prove it.

“Paul also fails to bring up the fact that it was the South that started the war by attacking the North in 1861.” No, this is not technically true, after South Carolina seceded, President Lincoln, stationed federal troops in Fort Sumter which by the treaty and law’s of that time, was an invasion of the sovereign land. There is more than enough historical evidence, to debunk that claim in that article.

“Ron Paul was also was the only member of congress to vote against honoring the Civil Rights Act Of 1964 in on its 40th anniversary in 2004. Paul would also claim that he wouldn’t have voted for it at the time, putting him on the side of the racists in both the fight against slavery and the fight against Jim Crow segregation, the two defining struggles of Black people in America.”

Of course, on his libertarian principle that the CRA took property rights from everyone, and with further historical research, to an extent, it’s true. Paul is like Barry Goldwater, but Goldwater was not a racist, I have looked in his own personal notes, studied them, nothing leads to him saying anything about hating blacks, because it goes against his philosophy on government and individual liberty. And this did not exactly, “Put him on the side of racists”, it would have favored state rights, but there was already a strong civil movement that would have taken care of it.

As a matter of fact, Rosa park, as he commented is a hero of his, kind of goes against segregation, if he liked an anti-segregationist. He gave free health care (Doc**ented Evidence and Proofread) to black’s when it was illegal. By the way, it was Southern Democrats who were the main force in denying black’s their rights, Paul has been a Republican all his life. Paul denounced segregation numerous times in speeches, Google it if you don’t believe me.

If you keep twisting facts, I will make sure to correct them, every time. I am a minority, Historian, and Political scientist, well educated, your games won’t work on me.

This is nothing but more propaganda that insinuates that Dr. Paul is a racist who believes in slavery. Keep in mind that Dr. Paul is the only candidate, Republican or Democrat who intends to pardon non violent drug offenders. Most are minorities trapped in a legal system that has enslaved them in prison factories by corrupt politicians and big business wanting cheap US labor. Where is the lame stream media in pointing out that outrage.

What the deceptive media fails to point out is that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was intended to correct Plessy v. Ferguson the “separate but equal” Supreme Court case of 1896 that held it constitutional for states to make laws allowing segregation. The separate but equal language spawned the Jim Crow laws that allowed states to legislate inequality. In 1954 Brown v. Board of Education the Supreme Court decided that education could inherently not be “separate but equal”. That was not enough to get rid of the Jim Crow laws, the many decisions after Plessy.

The Civil Rights Act “giving all Americans the right to be served in facilities which are open to the public—hotels, restaurants, theaters, retail stores, and similar establishments,” as well as “greater protection for the right to vote” sounds good unless you take a closer look. On a purely Constitutional view there would have been much better ways to eliminate the Jim Crow laws without an intrusive government negating individual property rights. Other countries have succeeded in ending segregation without disturbing property rights.

The bottom line is that the media attacks the man that will do more to restore liberty for all Americans than any other candidate. In fact there is no doubt that the despots are in control and do not want his message heard. Is it time for an election or a revolution?

The New Jim Crow Laws:
The War on Drugs
Foreign Wars
Poverty
Poor Education
Welfare Dependence
Abortion
It’s the message, not the messenger
Ron Paul 2012

Your ignorance is on full display, property rights and human rights are not separate entities, they’re fundamentally connected.

If some racist wants to open an all-white business, it’s their right.

It’s also the right of the locals to expose these bigots, and NOT patronize their business.

Try as you may to distort the issue, the reality is that Ron Paul is the ONLY candidate who genuinely cares about the rights of individuals, REGARDLESS of skin color.

A man who’s spent 30+ years fighting for individual rights, and who ALONE talks about the war on drugs and the Institutional RACISM that pervades our judicial system.

If you actually care about the rights of minorities, you’d better wake up to the fact that Ron Paul is the ONLY candidate who genuinely cares about your rights.

It ought to be pretty obvious by now that Obama sure as hell doesn’t.

Actually yes I have, I have friends in management and accounting with duel degrees in economics and it was my minor, care to try me?

I warn you, you will not like me.

i don’t see the problem? i do see how the Author is leading people to call him racist.. but i don’t see how he is racist.. he is against slavery..but also against Federal Government. Fredrick Douglas got freedom and become a rather wealthy man without a civil war.. plenty of black people did ..

I am going to support Ron Paul forever. for 1 simple fact. White People are the Majority.. if we wanted slavery we would have slavery. we are not Racist people. we want Individual FREEDOM..

I’m glad Ron Paul is around to check the decisions of Abraham Lincoln

The abolition of slavery is one of the best things that ever happened to our country – the Civil War and everything else that came out of it, the worst. The two are not mutually exclusive and all of your arguments are tied to emotion and not to fact. The Industrial Revolution had already made slavery irrelevant in the North and the US was basically the last Western power to abolish slavery in their own country – so yes, it was on it’s way out. Who can say how long it might have taken, but the fact that it WAS on the way out has a lot to do with why the war was fought anyway. Duh?

Ron Paul is the only candidate that would take votes away from Obama. He is the only one that would actually do anything different then Obama would as well. Romney, Gingrich, and Santorum would all be the same. They get in office and they get bullied by the top officials or they just follow suit.

Tell me everyone who speaks about how communist Obama is, What is one tax besides Cigarette / Tobacco Tax that has gone up in the past 3 years???

Who was the only member of congress to vote against the Civil Rights Act of 1964. And NOT BECAUSE HE IS RACIST. Mr. Ron Paul.

Screw the left, screw the damn right, just vote for America as a whole and get this man RON PAUL in office otherwise it will just be more of the same.

The fatherless welfare crowd is afraid of anyone who is a threat to their Black messiah.

Do you actually think Lincoln was originally motivated by the cause of abolition to fight the Civil War?

Next time you invoke the spirit of Abe, you might also recall he was SINGULARLY responsible for trashing the Bill of Rights, and eliminating habeus corpus.

Thanks for the chuckle, and for the omitting Lincoln’s real history.

Right, a privately owned establishment…but not one meant for public consumption. You can choose to exclude people from your home…unless you run a grocery store out of your home.

The writer of this article is obviously one of those. Casey Gane-McCalla wants to force herself on other people with forced integration by the Government. Still thinking like a slave your master is not God he cannot make people like you if they don’t. I hate people who claim to be about freedom and rights but really they are only about more of the same old tyranny. People any person has a right to be left the hell alone whats wrong with that? You want have the government force you to have white friends on face book too right? Ron Paul 2012

The media racists are really going after Ron Paul.

Dear racists, I know that you all hate Ron Paul, but please put your bigotry away and remember that we all have the same rights, and consider the sad fact that Ron Paul is the ONLY candidate standing up for EVERYONE… even racists like you.

Have a nice war or two or three or four

1. Is calling people derogatory names based on sharing a characteristic (in this case, support of a political philosophy) ever OK?

2. Is assuming that all members of a group share stereotypical negative characteristics ever OK?

3. I think you would be surprised at the number of people who support ideas in Ron Paul’s political philosophy who have spent significant time studying economics. I also think you’d be surprised to find out that this study is far more comprehensive than a simple “class” in economics.

4. I think you would be surprised at the number of people who support ideas in Ron Paul’s political philosophy, but have not spent any significant time reading Ayn Rand.

5. Reality is a very loose and subjective concept, and admonishing others to “live in reality” presumes that your view of reality is superior to their view of reality, with no objective proof of your assumption.

C’mon Casey,

Not too complete a thought process there.

Slavery and Jim Crow both were state functions. Government endorsed and maintained slavery and Jim Crow, doing so at the federal, state and local levels.

The “argument” over the 1964 Civil Rights Act entirely misses the point, first because it was so long ago and now is settled law; secondly, because those making this argument against Ron Paul never point out the obvious.

The obvious is that the Democratic Party supported Jim Crow (and slavery prior to that) and it was the Democratic Party which fought to beat the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

As bad as most of their members were on the issues of race (and in those days, most people still were pretty bad on race issues) a higher percentage of Republicans voted for the Civil Rights Act than did Democratic Houe and Senate members.

So, if Ron Paul is to be knocked for saying he’d vote against it, why not knock the entire Democratic Party, which was the party of Jim Crow? Those pot bellied Southern Sheriff types had Democratic Party fire hoses aimed at black women; those were Democratic Party dogs unleashed on black children.

There were and are reasons to oppose the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the main arguments against it then and which Paul resurrects are the 2 clauses Johnson added which have nothing to do with securing rights for black people and have everything to do with expanding federal power.

Those 2 clauses pertain to employment and habitation and in no way were part of the original plan for the legislation, and plan which had existed c0ncretely since the mid 50′s. Johnson simply added them in because he knew he could get the votes to pass the expanded legislation.

Ron Paul has spent a career on the side of the individual, all of us individual. I’ll take that any day over those on the side of government, the government which was slavery and Jim Crow.

On News One Once again I still hear no mention of the NDAA bill whatsoever.. get over it NewsOne This black guy voting for Paul doesnt buy it..

End the War On Drugs
End News One
Ron Paul 2012

Apparently using your logic human rights are only available to property owners.

they dont get it yet.. they old blacks still think its still the 60′s, even older whites think its the same year.. we have moved on you guys need to catch up

1. People have been calling anyone who doesn’t agree with Ron Paul all kinds of names and questioning their intelligence.

2. Nope, but it is done all the time.

3. I’ve spent significant time studying economics and find that most of Paul’s economics fall flat in real world applications.

4. Yes potheads.

5. Reality is reality. Revisionist history is subjective. The reality is most of the Ron Paul supporters I’ve come across tend to live in a world where history is irrelevant.

if any black ppl say they like ron paul …tell them to go to hell trader

Ph–uck this white devil!!!!

If any nicca is not convinced that this scrawny little devil aint evil then you’re just a dham fool!!!!!

how is he evil????

I’m not black but Ron Paul is the man. I should go to hell huh?

Nonsense concept. “Meant for public consumption” is irrelevant to the notion of one’s rights.

I am not convinced How is NDAA doing for us now??
Add the War on Drugs to the stop of that.

Well Im a Hell trader and black LOL
thanks for the complaint

Do we as a society really need a federal law telling us all to be good or we’ll go to jail?

Ghetto Saint you must be a damn fool.

Damn those jews don’t stop.

Absolutely right. If we are all equal in the eyes of the law, there should be no need for preferential treatment for anyone.

Also, this is the first time I’ve ever heard the Mises Institute, which lectures on economic theory, called a neo-confederate group. Someone clearly has not studied the institute.

funny how everyone glosses over the fact that Jim Crow laws were GOVERNMENT LAW that FORCED businesses to segregate. Ron Paul would have been all for ending Jim Crow, as it is an intrusion on the rights of small businesses. However, forcing on any business who they can or can’t serve, infringes on the rights of the business, so the civil rights act is just infringing on the rights of businesses, in the opposite direction from Jim Crow, but it is still an infringement.

Ron Paul does not hate black people , the civil war was a war amongst white people over taxes ok

I’d rather Ron Paul speak as neo confederate events that at AIPAC an organisation which celebrated the death of 1000 children at the hands of Israeli white phosphorous bombing

News One you have employed a horrible reporter in Casey Gane-McCalla. Either that or your whole staff sucks and those are the type of people you have there.

Stop hating on Ron Paul because you know his values are real as opposed to Barack Hussein Obama.

Hahahahaha

I never heard so much bull in my life,you know damn well if you did put up a Whites Only Sign.Your place would be white folks #1 spot to eat and hang out at.

The bus line was owned by the government. This fact is too-often ignored.

For all you Obama lovers……what makes him different from Bush???

He has continued all of the same s**t. He is even signing in that Military Court Martial Law where they can hold anyone they want without bail and without the rights that are guarenteed by our constitution.

CAN YOU SAY MIRROR IMAGE OF PATRIOT ACT?????

This isn’t racist at all dumbass. He is explaining a way the war could have been avoided by buying the slaves FREEDOM!!!!!!!. You are a horrible journalist. Or at least completely misguided

What the others fail to realize is that there still are ‘white only’ or even ‘black only’ establishments.., they are just disguised as ‘private clubs’….

Did you even watch the entire video? or just hop off of youtube once you saw that ron paul was standing in front of a confederate flag? Hopefully whoever reads your s**tty article actually watches the video. You are trash.

Gee, if Ron Paul’s economics are so bad, why was it that he predicted the housing bubble burst back in 2001? Why was it that von Mises got a Nobel prize in economics for predicting the great depression?

Why would you want to. To cause Trouble?

Changing the laws did not get rid of racism. Places where it was normal for restaurants or whatever to be “whites only” didn’t change overnight with the wave of the governments iron fist. People had to change.

The 1964 C.R. Act is unconstitutional in many ways, not the least of which is the fact that it allows the US Attorney General to impede on states rights by litigating lawsuits against STATE GOVERNMENTS!

Secondly, it opened the door to affirmative action. I know many minorities that despise A.A. because they are getting consideration based upon race (unconstitutional violation of rights btw) and not on their own merits.

Finally, it imposed Federal Law upon state run agencies to meet quotas for certain things such as bussing initially. It’s one of those things that is nice in theory, symbolic even, but bad in production.

That’s a pretty big distortion of Ron Paul’s views on the Civil Rights Act. He opposed two of the nine parts that required private businesses to not discriminate. Ron Paul is totally right on that point. Its immoral for government to compel private businesses and organizations on private property to allow anyone they don’t want in. Its also immoral for a business to turn away someone based on race, but it certainly should not be illegal.

Ron Paul supported repealing Jim Crow laws. That is not up for debate. Also, I don’t see anything horrible that video. Amazing how having any type of intellectual conversation about history is shot down. Think how many people believe FDR was a good president. That may be the prevailing wisdom, but a lot of us think his socialist policies have caused a great deal of harm.

African-American owned businesses generated $137.4 billion in 2007. If a business discriminated against African-Americans, do you think that perhaps other businesses (such as ones owned by African-Americans) might pick up those customers and generate even more revenue? In a free market, discrimination comes at a cost. Inclusive businesses will tend to succeed while exclusive ones will not. The real problem is when companies buy our politicians thru political contributions to insert protective legislation that keep small businesses from competing against the big corporations.

When a third of our national population is/has been involved in the penal system and an overly large share of those are African-American, something needs to be done. Ron Paul is the only presidential candidate talking about ending the war on drugs which unfairly targets minorities.

Ron Paul has been the only candidate to speak out against the death penalty due to how it is racially applied.

Freedom is dangerous, but it is worth it.

Counter this with President Obama recently signing the NDAA which allows for the detainment of American citizens indefinitely without trial. How do you think minorities will fair in the future under such legislation? Ron Paul has been the only candidate to speak out against it and also proposed legislation to curb it.

Ron Paul could be a rascist SOB, however, he seems a lot more color blind than any other politician in recent memory.

do you live in the south and know that theres still alot of very ignorant racists??? things would get bad,fast

In every war there are always side issues that muddy the water. You can cite those until your heads spins. Take those away one by one and see if it changes the equation. If it doesn’t, then it isn’t the core issue for the war.

1. Granted, some have been doing that, but this still does not justify YOU lumping all Paul supporters together under a derogatory name. Two wrongs don’t make a right.

2. Just because something is “done all the time” does not justify doing it. Racial profiling is done all the time in this country. That doesn’t justify it in any way.

3. I don’t doubt you’ve spent time studying economics, but I’d like to know which schools of economic thought you’ve studied in depth, and which one you believe to be most accurate in describing economic realities and motivations. Understand that most social sciences today have significantly varied parallel theories that rise and fall in prevalence within mainstream thought, suggesting that there is no single “correct” theory of human behavior at this time. Paul’s basic view on economics is mostly in line with the Austrian school, which has significantly influenced mainstream economics, but differs from almost all other theories in its focus on the fact that people are self-motivated and purpose driven. Most other economic theories try to look at economics based strictly on statistics and empirical models, and this often leads to overemphasis on specific economic factors, and a failure to see the bigger picture. You can see evidence of this most recently in the failure of most mainstream economists to predict that we were in a bubble right before 2008, and the overall failure of most of the recent attempts to jump-start a recovery by re-creating conditions similar to those right before the crisis hit. It is important to note that all economic theories have a certain degree of predictive power, else they would cease to have any adherents, and the overall validity of the theory can be judged by the degree to which it outperforms other theories in making such predictions. In this regard, adherents of the Austrian school are somewhat vindicated in predicting that using Keynesian monetary policies will not prevent the business cycle from repeating: rather, it elongates the cycle, creating bigger booms, but also much bigger busts, and results in rates of inflation over the long term that are damaging to the incentive to save, making the impact of the busts much more severe. Ultimately however, you have to accept that social sciences in general are imperfect in their ability to predict how humans will behave. Your criticism that most of Paul’s economics fall flat in real world applications is a little strange, given that his ideas are not being implemented yet in totality, merely bits and pieces crammed into the flawed framework we are currently in. And he accurately points out that implementing them would result in a short period of pain where the markets would go through corrections, but lead to a better chance at future prosperity.

4. Reducing the Paul support base to Ayn Rand fanatics and potheads is exactly the type of ignorant stereotyping I was objecting to in points 1 and 2, so your argument seems to be that while stereotyping and associated behavior is wrong, it’s done enough that you’ll continue to do it and expect that it will be treated as a valid argumentative technique. You’re forgetting people who are disillusioned with current failures of big government, those who are wary of the escalating national debt, those who want to limit America’s role as policemen of the world, those who want to make a political statement by supporting the only candidate whose influence is not for sale to the highest bidder, and a whole host of other issues that draw people to his campaign.

5. ALL history is subjective, with many competing interpretations of major events, and it is only by looking deeper at root causes behind the conflicts of history that we can learn to avoid repeating those mistakes. Most of the Ron Paul supporters I’ve come across are very interested in history, and see it as incredibly important in determining our future actions.

Mark,
I’m a nurse who has worked in inner-city hospitals, both public and private, all over the United States. You raise a great point. No, hospitals should not be able to discriminate against people based on race.

However, your argument is comparing apples and oranges. Doctor’s take an oath to do no harm. Refusal to treat would constitute harm. In my humble opinion, a doctor (and nurses) should not be able to practice if they refuse treatment based on ethnicity because it would violate their oaths.

Ludwig Von Mises was a Jew from what was the Austria-Hungary. He is probably the most prominent figure of the Austrian school of economics, which blames the bubbles on the role played by the central bank (i.e. the FED!).

How that would qualify as “racist” and “neo-confederate” is beyond me.

This was in reply to siditty’s response to me downthread.

I’m not black but Ron Paul is the man. I should go to hell huh?
==========================================

Yepper! With gasoline soaked draws!

FUK THIS RACIST PIG!

Such a hypocritical writer who patronizes racists people establishments have you extracted yourself from their system in any? The entire system is racist and you know it and you support it willingly. Get off the white peoples addiction. You want to be friends with and do business with whites or not is your business not the government. So because Paul is in front of a confederate flag he a bogeyman to black people?

What is wrong with your brain that you continue to push this trash? I get it you must be for Obombya the 1 term liar wonder who gave us NDAA, the ultimate in hit list take outs, and those wonderful drones he deservers another Nobel Peace Prize. I think people know Ron Paul is the only one for the job and your silly little attempt to smear the good statesman fails miserably again.

Tamra,
Who is defending Jim Crow laws? Ron Paul spoke out against them.
Who is defending lynching? No one posting here so far.

The government should not/cannot discriminate. The Jim Crow laws were wrong because they legislated rascism/discrimination.

The enslavement of blacks in America and the later Jim Crow laws are amongst the most shameful acts in American history (up there with the Trail of Tears and ethnic destruction of Native Americans). However, how is repression of personal freedoms helping equality today?

I swear ya’ll stay hollerin that racist bs pick up a book and read at least Paul is doing things to keep my freedoms unlike Obama signing bills to strip me of em. It’s sad that some blacks still dick ride Obama and he hadn’t did anything for them beside be the black telepromting globalist goldman sachs jp morgan w***e. I feel like most of u compromised with Obama which makes you no better than those GW Bush supporters. 3yrs of nothing but expansions of Bush policies and here it is you complain about nobody didn’t say anything when Bush was doing it so u set there and do the same as Obama does it because it’s your guy if your looking for the alternative to Obamaney Ron Paul is that guy stop with the Ron Paul is racist crap the only guy with balls that speaks on real issues.

For the fifteenth millionth time, I will never vote for a klan member. Until someone proves me wrong; if you support him, your part of the klan too. Black or White! What also pains me is that there some uncle toms that support this klan member as well. And no one, and I mean no one will discredit or talk about his racist son, Rand Paul. Gee, I wonder why?

Losers like you keep racism still alive. You can go f**k yourself Iwillbfree. You already are free, but little by little that freedom is being taken away by your boy BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, like the president before him. All you see is color and you can tell by the response b***h. Ron Paul is not racist and you should look up his track record before speaking about s**t you don’t know.

Obama is taking away our freedoms, much like Bush was doing as well. Ron Paul could change this s**tty course we are on but people are either to ignorant, or they are to racist to get through the smoke screens to what is real.

Sorry, I distinctly saw Paul talking out of his mouth in that video, not his butt.

Also, the British Empire did eliminate slavery without a war. The U.S. could have as well.

Kill them all

I see you wear the 5 star cap, eh?

Anyway…the government did not have ANYTHANG to do with the integration of ‘whites only’ restaurants! BLACKS WERE HUNG, MURDERED, DOGS SICKED ON THEM, WATERHOSED BY RACIST FIREFIGHTERS, BEATEN BY CRACKER PIGS, AND THEIR FOOD SPAT ON WHEN THEY GOT SERVED!!!

THIS BULLS**T IS WHAT HAS FUKED UP BLACK FOLKS…INTEGRATION!

HOW MANY CAUASOIDS WOULD DIE JUST TO GIVE BLACK FOLKS THEIR MONEY???

THE GOVERNMENTS ‘IRON FISTS’ HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH IT! THE ONLY ‘IRON FIST’ THE GOVERNMENT HAD WAS TO MAKE SURE BLACKS WERE KILLED!

YOU CRACKERS ARE “NEVER” GOING TO CHANGE!

“At the core of Paul’s argument about the Civil War is that there was a better way that would’ve led to FAR fewer lives being lost. Is it worth hundreds of thousands of lives — the vast majority of them non-slave owning and poor — to end slavery a year or two before it would’ve been ended anyway? It’s a difficult question, and I’m not quite sure where I stand on it — but it is not as simple as some of you anti-Paul folks make it sound.”

His “better way”, the north buying and freeing slaves, buys into the assumption that Black people are property to be bought and sold. How people can believe that he supports individual liberty and equality for ALL people boggles my mind.

Ron Paul is part of the KKK. Hahahahahahah. Dude learn history. Everyone shouldn’t have to get dumber for a second when reading your comments.

the south only attacked the north because the north provoked it by refusing to leave fort sumter. the union knew what they were doing in starting a war

It is great that you try to paint Ron Paul as someone who would be for Jim Crow laws. Do you know anything about the guy? The abolishing of Jim Crow laws were something he was completely for.
His message is LIBERTY for EVERYONE. That doesn’t mean the government has the right to tell businesses they have to serve someone, however. That is infringement on property rights which is why he was against the civil rights act.

It is really too bad the people of the United States of America are too ignorant for Ron Paul.

Most of those WHITE RACIST OWNERS used government funds to get started…so he shouldn’t do as he wishes, because he/she uses government funds and services.

Most of those WHITE RACIST OWNERS used government funds to get started…so he shouldn’t do as he wishes, because he/she uses government funds and services.

You guys do understand that Ron Paul says the war on drugs and the entire prison system is racist, right. You also understand that a Libertarian, by definition, cannot be a racist, right? I’m also assuming you know he, as a doctor, would treat poor people of any race for free, right?

This is the best the mainstream media can come up with ? Nothing inconsistent here, Paul stays true to his anti-war, anti-death message. Just because he believes that the killing of 600,000 plus soldiers during the civil war was wrong…doesnt make him pro-slavery. As for seccession…did we not secede from Great Britain ? We did. And it was necessary. I am not saying that the south’s motivations were all moral..but it all comes down to the will of the people and for them they decided to split. We all can agree that slavery is wrong, yet even today most of us unwittingly embrace it in some regards. Whether it is in the form of accepting the Selective Service in the Armed forces that implies that the military owns our young men’s lives, or in terms of economic slavery which the Federal Reserve ensures that we all are bound by. This is why Paul’s message of individual liberty is so important, because without individual liberty…we are all slaves, in some fashion.

I saw this at the 2011 Annual Meeting of the Organization of American Historians in Houston. It was a panel of historians emphasizing that “while slavery and its various and multifaceted discontents were the primary cause of disunion, it was disunion itself that sparked the war.” States’ rights and the tariff issue became entangled in the slavery issue, and were intensified by it. Other important factors were party politics, Abolitionism, Southern nationalism, Northern nationalism, expansionism, sectionalism, economics and modernization in the Antebellum Period. TALK ABOUT TAKING A MAN OUT OF CONTEXT…

Of course we all know that we should believe, listen to, and spread the word about some loser blogger who works for non-profits for a living and posts contextual lies on the internet… The sad thing is people feed into it. I’m not voting for Ron Paul this year, but at least get your facts straight and quit propagandizing the internet to fit your selfish desires…

People shouldn’t be discussing historical topics they have no understanding of. The Civil War history, as we’re taught it in public schools, is so blatantly revisionist that it glorifies such a horrible and unnecessary war to the point that we can’t even question it without idiots like the author slamming us.

Get this straight: the Civil War was not fought over slaves and every other civilized nation in the world ended slavery without war. Until you understand these two historical concepts, you are not fit to talk about this subject.

…and if he would re-refer to his reference of the Ludwig Von Mises Institute… Wow this guy is a true to God tool!!!

The Ludwig Von Mises INSTITUTE (not the person , the institute founded by Lew Rockwell) is listed by the SPLC as a RACIST organization. Do the research!

Hi Ghetto Saint. I’m not trying to offend you ok? But when you get some time try to read a few books (or even articles if you don’t have time) about something called the “Nullification Crisis” in the 1830′s and look up Andrew Jackson and his vice-president John C. Calhoun. See if you can put the Civil War of 1861 in perspective with the few decades that led up to it. I know you seeing the headlines and have been taught certain things about the Abe Lincoln and the Civil War. But you might be surprised about what really happened. God bless man..

Hi Jayevans20. I’m not trying to offend you ok? But when you get some time try to read a few books (or even articles if you don’t have time) about something called the “Nullification Crisis” in the 1830′s and look up Andrew Jackson and his vice-president John C. Calhoun. See if you can put the Civil War of 1861 in perspective with the few decades that led up to it. I know you seeing the headlines and have been taught certain things about the Abe Lincoln and the Civil War. But you might be surprised about what really happened. God bless man..

>this still does not justify YOU lumping all Paul supporters together under a derogatory name
Ron Paul DOES have racist supporters-600 topics some w. over 16 pages each on the Stormfront forum dedicate to glorifying “their King Ron Paul.” By also liking Paul and refusing to acknowledge AND condemn the FACT he is supported by racist makes Paul supporters like you a racist apologist. Simple. Repent! Renounce racism by renouncing Ron Paul!

your sheet is showing

Why would either support biggoted philosophy by patronizing those persons establishments-

You both are arguing for the sake of doing so- knock it off and grow up.

People that know they are not desired customers rarely submit themselves to be served in such situations unless THEY are looking to start a fight or be a pain in the ass- of which laws exist against such hostile acts-

Your comments are emotional and irrational

Most people agree that you should be able to post a “whites only” sign on your house, because they believe you should be free to be a racist jerk if you want in your own home. The problem comes because they don’t view a restaurant as private property. Libertarians, however, do view a restaurant as private property. Therefore you should be able to act like a racist jerk and exclude people from your restaurant, but the market will punish people for acting that way. The old segregation was supported by the government through slavery and then through Jim Crow laws. When society became less racist, they repealed those laws. The market would have enforced the preferences of the more tolerant morality of the people by punishing any remaining racist businesses with declining market share. Very quickly, such businesses would have gone the way of the Dodo Bird. No infringement on property rights was necessary.

most people do not look past the simple, unfortunately for Ron Paul. Classic example is blow-back with our foreign policy that Americans cannot seem to grasp.

Blacks and Whites talk past each other when it comes to state’s rights and slavery because many black people believe state’s rights=slavery. This link needs to change. The whole issue reminds me of the difference between an enzyme and protein for all you geeks out there where an enzyme is usually a protein but a protein is not always an enzyme. Same thing with state’s rights and slavery where slavery is usually a state’s rights issue but a state’s rights issue is not always about slavery.

I guess if you are black you are naturally supposed to not listen to any one talking about the Civil War unless the agenda of the forum is to miseducate the public all the historical reasons. Hence why home school and not public ed is the new revolution in educating young AA minds.

1. Ron Paul wasn’t the “only” person to predict the housing bubble burst-so he’s not some sort of prophet.
2. The Von Mises INSTITUTE (not the person) is a racist organization and NEVER got the Nobel prize.

The South didn’t start the war. Lincoln provoked shots being fired on southern territory at Fort Sumter, but there were no casualties. There is a letter from Lincoln to one of his general’s thanking him for getting the result that they wanted at Fort Sumter. Lincoln then used this event as a pretext to launch a full-scale invasion of the South.

War wasn’t necessary to end slavery. Lincoln adamantly claimed that getting rid of slavery was not his goal. Every other country in the world got rid of slavery without a war. We could have too.

To me, it sounds like he’s quoting history… Not preaching hate.
You people are idiots.

This is retarded.

Ron Paul is caught on video claiming the “South was right” while standing in front of a confederate flag and you claim that WE are purposely misrepresenting Ron Paul ? Sorry, Ron Paul has done a pretty good job misrepresenting himself with this one and when this plays on CNN, MSNBC, ABC etc. mainstream America is also going to ‘misrepresent’ Ron Paul. There is no way he will ever be president. This video should officially disqualify him. What an embarrassment.

People are asking that the video be taken down? No way, leave it up! I find that hard to believe than any supporter of Dr. Paul would request such a thing, since we hold a lot of the same beliefs in the constitution as the candidate we support for the 2012 election.

In no way does he ever say he supported slavery or anything along those lines in this video. He makes a very clear speech with many valid points, but you have chosen (for your own intentions, which are quite clear) to write an article that doesn’t even reflect what was ACTUALLY said in the video! I encourage people to watch the video themselves before reading your actual article.

If anything should be taken down, it should be your untrue article…but guess what, Ron Paul wouldn’t want you to take it down because he is such a strong advocate for the freedom of speech. So go ahead and say whatever you want, but you couldn’t be more wrong about what he was saying in the video or what he stands for. If you don’t quite understand, please let me know so I can spell it out in more basic terms.

Have a good day!

If I were dumb enough to put that on my business, I am throwing out a large group of potential customers, and I would eventually go belly up. regaurdless, I should have the freedom to make that decision. I swear, people really underestimate the power of free market competition.

Seriously. Someone’s business or restaurant should be like their house. They payed for it. They own it. That’s like saying I have to let certain people in my house. I don’t have to do anything. That the government forces you to is ridiculous.

Just listen to how Elizabeth Warren explain how everyone benefit from the workings of the gov’t. If you own a restaurant-but if it burned down or it is robbed-who will you call? The fire & police dept.-So you cannot do what you want to do w/in the bounds of society. Now if you live on an island-that is a different ballgame.

let me make this simple as possible. ron paul is no racist. ron paul is a defender of states rights that is what he was talking about. slavery was a most despicable and horrid institution that would have died a natural death. slavery was ended in the united kingdom by purchasing slaves from the owners as well as most of the slave holding european countries. why doesnt anyone pitch a b***h every 10 years at census time. why would a supposed color blind government even want to know your race and ethnicity ? the jewel of civil rights, affirmative action, only affirms that the race pot keeps getting stirred. long as we’re hating each other over race, religion, political affiliation, etc., etc. were not focusing our anger and intellect on the real problem we face in this country. the federal government and its masters we’ll just call the shadow government. dont start spouting conspiracy theory. just follow the money, you’ll see who really makes the world go round.

I work in politics staff quite often doesn’t agree with candidates they are DOING A SERVICE for and earning a living and quite often jump ship to other candidates who will pay more. They are called STAFF. It’s just a job. So don’t use his ‘national press secretary’ as ‘representing Black people.’ Yes he should quit but the man probably has a family to feed so this is going to be a tough call for him.

Mises Institute is actually a libertarian economics/political rights think tank.

John McCain also didn’t vote to affirm the Civil Eights Act.

And the outside of the radical Republicans, the public didn’t want to free the slaves immediately because they would have to compete for jobs. Both sides sucked at handling the slavery issue.

Get your facts right and dig a little more into the history and context of everything. This is nothing but a rant.

No one is getting lynched, nor have them been for some time. We live in a different world. You need to understand that you are not entitled to enter someone else’s property. For example: Say you owned a diner. And the same motorcycle gang came in and harassed your patrons and employees. You didn’t want them there. So you put up a sign that says, “No Motorcyclists”. Is that okay?

Should you be forced by law to tolerate their presence when you pay the bills? Hell no.

Not just hell no. HELL NO!

Mises Institute is actually a libertarian economics/political rights think tank. Mises was a libertarian economist in the 20th Century

John McCain also didn’t vote to affirm the Civil Rights Act.
And the outside of the radical Republicans, the North public didn’t want to free the slaves immediately because they would have to compete for jobs (think Mexican immigration issues). Both sides sucked at handling the slavery issue.

Get your facts right and dig a little more into the history and context of everything. This is nothing but a rant.

The Civil Rights Act’s effect on private property was to force bigoted business owners to accept minorities as customers. It baffles me as to why any would think this is a good idea. Getting rid of racism in the law (i.e. Jim Crow) is completely necessary, but why would people want to frequent an establishment where, if not for some law, the owner would throw you out? When such sentiments are hidden by law, the racist in question suffers no public shame and still receives custom from those who ought not to be paying him money!

slavery is still present. what do you think the ndaa represents? slavery exists in the military. slavery exists in our tax code. until we the people pull together for a smaller fed gov, we will always be slaves. we will always be told what to do and how to do it or end up as a political prisoner in a federal prison.

im not a historian but Dr. Paul has made a good point. his point is peace not war. save life instead of destroying it. nothing wrong with that. peace out

The level of journalism on NEWSONE is disturbing. This appears to be propaganda when objective journaalism is what our people need.

The headlines are misleading, the writers inject opinion into the stories, and the message the subjects are saying is often grossly taken out of context.

This is unacceptable and is not the purpose of journalism.

It is irresponsible to report about how Ron Paul votes and to not investigate the facts regarding his reasoning for the vote. It is lazy to suggest Paul supports Southern policy and to again, not investigate his reasoning. To report in this fashion allows a reporter to take out of context the message intended by the subject.

I am a black man that supports the advancement of black americans, but I will not support rabble-rousing propaganda with what appears to have it’s own agenda for God-only-knows for what reason.

Why would neo-Confederates honor Ludwig von Mises? Are they into Jewish Austrian economists?

And why would buying an end to slavery somehow be worse than killing and maiming a million Americans to achieve the same end?

The CRA of 1964 was imperfect, which is why it has been amended several times, and some would say it’s still imperfect. Besides, isn’t a new bill to honor an old bill sort of like political masturbation? Shouldn’t congress have better things to do than pat themselves on the back, especially considering that they have to go back almost 50 years to find something half-worthy?

This is more tied to Ron Paul’s anti war stance and property rights stance than anything. To try to suggest he is a racist or “anti civil liberties” is misinformed (deliberately or not deliberately). He is the only pro liberty candidate on either ticket.

The institute is also listed by the SPLC as a racist organization.

The South WAS right in that thy had the right to secede. Slavery is wrong, obviously, but the slavery issue was only prevalent later on in the civil war.

Lincoln started the Civil War by refusing the South their sovereign right to secede, effectively transforming the United States (plural) from a “Federative Polity” into the United States (singular), a “Modern Nation State”.

This was the true purpose of the Civil War. Lincoln was one o the worst presidents in this regard, trampling state’s rights in favor of a strong centrally run singular nation.

Most people don’t uderstand this and think the Civil War was all about slavery. Ron Paul just points out it would have made more sense costwise financially and in terms of loss of human life if the White House had bought all the slaves to grant them freedom as opposed to spending the amount of money on war that they did.

RESTORE THE FEDERATIVE POLITY.

DISMANTLE THE MODERN NATION STATE

So by your rationale I am fully justified in changing my screen name to ‘Suburb Savior’ and hurling racial epithets at undeserving black folk?

Where exactly in this video did Ron Paul say he supported slavery? Where’s the racist remarks??? This was probably created and posted by someone from the Jon Huntsman campaign like the fake “China Jon” video.

You don’t get it. Wether you are black or a skinhead, you are not “entitled” to stay on someone private property if you are not welcome.

If a business owner doesn’t want a person (no matter what color or dosposition) on their private business property, they Gould have the right to refuse service to anybody.

You are not entitled to anything, except our unalienable rights. If your desires violate someone elses private property rights, then you are not entitled to those desires. Plain and simple.

In fairness though. A lot of people think that it is government’s place to root out discrimination, because if left to our own devices – some people will not get a fair shake.

No matter how disgusting it may be, it is the right of the private property owner to choose who is welcome at their establishments. They have the right to refuse service to anyone.

Why would anyone want to eat at a restaurant owned by a racist anyway?

Yes! and much as was discussed in several of my Afro-American history courses — taught by
Prof. Earl Lewis at the U. of Minnesota-Twin Cities, and excellently so — but neither blacks nor whites usually study this in much detail, unfortunately. One side of my sociologically-defined as
“racially white” ancestors were on the Northern side and others on the Southern side, and of course for blacks the searing injustice of the whole history is undeniable — hopefully people
will research Dr. Paul’s actual views, take a look at ethnic minorities who have stated their
support or whatever it takes to discuss policy issues and not diversions.

BS!

Excellent point.

This article is a joke. RON PAUL is by far the most kind hearted man working for the people not against us like everyone else. RON PAUL 2012

BS. It wouldn’t have failed then. Because we would still have a segregated society and as a results attitudes would never have changed. We would still have “whites only” stores, restaurants etc. There are completely different rules for the public and private spheres. If you want to post the most outlandish racist crap ever on your own private property….your a disgusting human being…but go for it. But when you open your doors to the public the law states that you have to provide those services to any customer that walks in and is willing to pay. Providing some minimum standards…shoes, shirts, proper behavior etc. Now all you libertarian cave dwellers can scream, cry and try and drag society back through time. But its not going to work. Get over it.

You are incredibly confused — OK, I renounce any supporters who think Ron Paul is a “racist” and support him out of that mistaken notion (and to attempt to `coopt’ his campaign) but naturally it does not follow that I ought to “renounce” Ron Paul etc.
You do realize that there is no way to discover who actually is posting “Ron Paul is our King”
gibberish on the internet? Did you follow the attempt by the Jon Huntsman campaign to plant
a clearly ethnically biased aka “racist” video and hope it would be blamed on Paul’s supporters?
Good luck keeping your blinders on to what’s goin’ on.

Hit piece by one of the globalist pukes who don’t understand what the civil war was really fought over, the slave issue was just used to get public support, the real reason was the federal governments infringement of states rights ~ Slavery is wrong, no doubt about it, but now everyone is a debt slave, white, black, yellow, red, doesn’t matter, you are born into debt. Stop supporting the New World Order and its’ tyranny, and you claim to be an American, whatever…

Hence they are an infallible objective source with no ax to grind — I used to get solicitations from the Southern Poverty Law Center and they are an excellent group, but not correct in implying that the Ron Paul campaign is “racist” nor that the INSTITUTE is “racist” — if you can
post precise evidence to the contrary, go ahead. You cannot simply post a smear and then
expect it to be believed without posting at least some of the results of YOUR alleged `research.’
If it as weak as the silly arguments in the article heading this comment thread, of course you can believe what you like but it doesn’t make it correct.

UNBELIEVABLE…no one can in their right mind now claim Ron Paul is not a closeted racist after standing behind the Confederate flag rather than the flag of the UNITED STATES of America.

Too confused to bother about — you need to do some serious research on this — it’s a pathetic
hoax you have fallen for, otherwise.

This is a very libertarian thing that I don’t understand. The whole resteraunt segregation thing makes sense if a politician is extremely for individual rights. The consequence of course is the discrimination that might occur. Modern day libertarians believe our society has come at a point where discrimination wont occur because the free-market would backfire on that racist resteraunt owner. And this sounds true for sure, but I think they put too much confidence on society. I personally believe racism would find its way back into the mainstream and the work of MLK and etc would been in vain. I’m not down-playing Paul or the rest of the Libertarians. I don’t see them as condomming racism, but I do think their philosophy in this matter is deeply flawed. I agree with Paul any countless issues, just not this one. Also, if anyone took a college history course, you’d see why Paul is correct on the civil war. Un-like popular belief, Lincoln was a tyrant. He’s one of the most unconstitutional presidents, and many believe, just like Dr.Paul, that the civil war could of been avoided. Slavery could have been abolished without war. All other nations in the world just simply got rid of slavery. The U.S. had to kill over half a million of its people to do it.

THIS IS AWESOME! So, the little Neo-Confederate is exposing himself for who he really is. Paul sees the Mormon and the Adulterer making this a two man race and he’s doing whatever he can to squeeze himself back into it. So, he’s in the South and what plays well to those crackers, rednecks, perckerwoods and hillbillies, other than sexing up their immediate relatives, bath tub booze, barn yard animal erotica, crystal meth, trailer park weekly, guns and ammo and rattle snake biting khristianity? The South was right. Now, I wonder what all of those Negro, Stepin Fetchit son’s of b***hes who supported this dude because he wanted to decriminalize The Chronic, feel about this?

BS! Meant for public consumption doesn’t change the fact that it’s private property!

Garbage argument

Why are we even discussing this man. He is not going to be the nominee, and he will not run independent. We should be more concerned about his son Rand Paul.

Either post actual details tending to prove this is a correct judgment by the Southern Poverty
Law Center , or give it up as just a misguided oversimplification of the Institute’s policy recommendations.

Please indicate exactly and by exactly I mean, direct me to the exact passage or article in the Act, where The Civil Rights Act of 1964 explicitly prohibits discrimination in restaurants on the basis of belonging to a generally unpopular racist politically oriented group. The Act clearly prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion or national origin. But I have been unable to find exactly where “a bunch of skinheads” fits any of those designations. Since you seem to be exceptionally familiar with The Act, I would really appreciate you enlightening all of us on this. Thank you!

The only joke is Ron Paul. What are your friends and neighbors going to think of you when they see this on all the major news channels (that is if, like most Ron Paul supporters you’ve been ranting about the guy for the last month and a half)?

Slavery is also still practiced in various other nations — some in Africa — but the debate here
is about the historical chattel slavery almost exclusively focused on black slaves brought
via the Atlantic passage, and whether or not it could have been better ended than as was done
by Lincoln in 1861-65. And whether or not even raising the possibility makes someone a
“racist.”
Compare the writings of Prof. William Appleman Williams on this topic for example —
in The Contours of American History, and America Confronts a Revolutionary World,
1776-1976.

It would fail because of public opinion? Didn’t the majority of (white) southerners favor segregation? I’m sure in many of these small southern towns someone would do quite well with a “whites only” sign.

Donna how come Obama hasn’t done any of the things he said he would do. Because he is a puppet just like Bush was.

Name me one tax that was raised in the last 3 years besides cigarette / tobbaco tax???

Your either to ignorant, or your to racist to see through the smoke screens in politics.

The Civil War was not all about Slavery. That played a role in it, but that is what is used primarily to justify all of the unnecessary blood shed that took place. It was mainly about not wanting federal government taxation and regulation. The slavery angle was used as more of a strategic angle later on to turn the Confederates Slaves against their Confederate owners. Lincoln and Northerners had Slaves to!!!!!

96 Democrats voted against the Civil Rights act of 1964

Al Gore father voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964

as more than one person mentioned above and as is evident from both the article and comments, most people have no idea what the civil war was really about; it wasn’t the war that ended slavery as it commonly thought or taught (great example of how history is written/re-written [ie twisted] by the victors) it was in fact a very cleverly disguised war of foreign conquest which in the end turned all of us (regardless of color/gender etc.) into slaves (free-range debt slaves, chattel property of the elite/banksters/money masters and their puppet government), look into 14th ammendment citizenship if you think thats bs, if the war was really about ‘freeing’ an oppressed class of people they would have (in the end) been given the same rights as the non-oppressed class enjoyed but this seperate class of citizenship was created instead and eventually everyone was so designated so that now, instead of having ‘constitutionally guaranteed rights’, we have ‘civil liberties’ or government issued privileges which can be altered and/or revoked at will, there is no governement accountability to either the people or the doc**ent from which it claims it’s legitimacy (the constitution)… what needed to happen and still needs to happen is that the principles this country was founded on (ie constitution & bill of rights?) be re-instituted and applied to EVERYONE. if the govt. had done it’s job properly to begin with (protect the rights of ALL people not just wealthy/land-owning wasps) it would have never been an issue…

Bill Clinton———made Confederate General Robert E Lee birthday a holiday in Arkansa.

FUK YOU NIGGA!

I don’t give a fuk about your cracker ass or ron paul! Both of y’all niggas hate Black people and talk all this bulls**t about equality and all! You bastards ain’t never gonna be EQUAL to us Black people because you are a CARBON COPY of the ORIGINAL people on planet Mother Black Earth!

That’s ALL you crackers see is color! When Blacks walk in your people’s restaurants, grocer stores, clothing stores and even your people’s car lots; Black people are DISRESPECTED! You ignorant crackers are so damn stupid that you can’t ‘see’ racism as long as negroids continue to support you bastards!

ALL YOU PALE THANGS SEE IS GREEN when negroids come into your people’s businesses! They hate us Black folks, but LOVE our money!

I’LL BET MY LIFE, LITTLE NIGLET, IF YOUR SON OR DAUGHTER STARTS DATING OR MARRY A NEGRO…YOU WILL NOT LET THEM BACK IN YOUR TRAILER PARK! AM I RIGHT? OF COURSE I AM!

So, take that racism shyt and stick up your pee-hole because BLACK PEOPLE ARE NOT RACIST!!! I don’t know how many times I have to explain that to you dumb ass white niggas!

THIS SITE IS BEING BOMBARDED WITH A BUNCH OF RACIST CRACKERS TO KEEP US DIVIDED AND TO SWAY WEAK NEGROIDS TO VOTE FOR ONE OF THESE RACIST KLANNERS!!!

FOR REAL, THO!

smoke screens in politics? Ron Paul is standing in front of a confederate flag. The image alone is worth a thousand words. He’s in fourth place in a four man race. He raised 4 million on his December money bomb but his January money bomb barely netted 1.3 million. He’s finished. People are waking up and the only one who is ignorant are supporters like you who refuse to admit it.

The sad part of this story is that the author of this piece probably has a college degree and yet, zero knowledge of the civil war. Regarding ending slavery by financial compensation, a number of nations actually did that. And more note worthy, that is exactly how slavery was ended in the District of Columbia (Washington DC). No the Emancipation Proclamation did not free those in Lincoln’s front yard. Dr. Paul talks about in conflicts, understanding the other’s perspective such as those in the Arab nations. In the south at the time, the industry was agriculture. The large plantations (who were the slave owners), would go to the banks at planting time with their financial statements and borrow on the futures of their crops (commodity market). Slaves were counted as assets and included in assessing the planters wealth. So to simply free slaves would have meant devastating accounting entries to those planter’s balance sheets and abilities to finance production of their products. That was the bigger driver in resistance to ending slavery. The bigger problem in the federal government compensating the south was the fact that near 90% of the federal governments revenues at the time came from the southerners.

But then, the war did not start over slavery, nor did the south “attack” the north. As stated in a previous post, the number one important issue of that war was federalism. Few are aware that when the Treaty of Paris was signed ending the Revolutionary War, King George granted sovereign nation status to each of the then states. They in turn formed the United States. The conflicts there following had to do with state sovereignty versus federal, going back to initial intentions each state believed to be the case when they joined the union. Even the federalist Lincoln, did not believe the federal government had any right to determine whether a state legalized slavery or not.

They know there king F$#@ up by letting himself be filmed in front of a confederate flag so now they’re trying to save his campaign. The video has gone viral over night from about 800 views to 6,856 ! It’s like watching a car wreck or a plane crash. Ron Paul’s campaign is over. If he doesn’t drop out he’s a bigger idiot than I thought because once this hits the mainstream news he’s going to embarrass a lot of people who bought into his sh$#

The libertarian philosophy is not flawed at all. You seemed to missed the fact that Jim Crows Laws were LAWS of the government. They were about providing special rights to one group and the denial of rights to another group. Everyone agrees those were wrong but fail to grasp that the CRA was also about providing special rights to one group and the denial of rights to another group. Our laws should have been in the beginning and today, about equal rights to all with no privilege to any select group. This is the true state of a nonracial society.

“Nonsense concept. “Meant for public consumption” is irrelevant to the notion of one’s rights.”

It’s not nonsense in a world absent of absolutes. In the real world, The distinction between private and public property is more complicated and it doesn’t take on such absolutist characteristics. Reasonable people recognize that there is a relevant moral (and now legal) difference between rights regarding one’s home and rights regarding one’s restaurant, even if neither are strictly “Public property”. So yes, anyone can refuse to admit someone in his/her home. And no, no one can arbitrarily refuse anyone from his/her restaurant. I frankly think that Ron Paul’s Moral and Political Philosophy is severely impoverished; impoverished because of its oversimplification of real world complexities. It leads his followers (and I mean “followers”, not “supporters”) to make ridiculous moral and political claims.

Your political philosophy is impoverished. Issues about what types of property there are, are more complicated than your philosophy maintains.

“Seriously. Someone’s business or restaurant should be like their house.”

There are good reasons why it shouldn’t.

“They payed for it. They own it. That’s like saying I have to let certain people in my house.”

It isn’t, because one’s house is different from one’s restaurant. They are very different in the way they function in the world.

The very fact Ron Paul claims the North should have paid to buy slaves from southern slave owners shows he does not regard them as people but as a commodity.

All I know is that Ron Paul says Israel can take of itself…and everyone from Beck, to Limbaugh, to CNN, to MSNBC thinks we still need this APIAC bulls**t around our necks…hence he’s crazy or racist.

“The bus line was owned by the government. This fact is too-often ignored.”

Yeah, state and local governments, that were explicitly racist under the pretense of “States Rights”.

The CRA of 1964 wouldn’t have been necessary if Lyndon Johnson and the democrats had not fought so hard against the Republican’s CRA of 1957 and watered it down to be meaningless. And the democrats were the biggest obstacle in getting the 1964 bill passed.

Yes they have. SLPC has listed the Institute as a racist organization. Do your research.

It would fail because of public opinion? Didn’t the majority of (white) southerners favor segregation? I’m sure in many of these small southern towns someone would do quite well with a “whites only” sign.

Thank you Mr. Gane-McCalla for such a great series of articles! Keep’em coming! BTW-I’m nominating you for a Pulitzer!

“The 1964 C.R. Act is unconstitutional in many ways”

Except that it’s been upheld by the Supreme Court as Constitutional ever since. Both the Commerce Clause contained in Article I of the Founders’ Constitution as well as Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment plainly give Congress the power to ban racial discrimination by private businesses that run public accommodations. In 1964, in the landmark case of Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States, the Supreme Court unanimously upheld the public accommodations provision of the 1964 Civil Rights Act under the Commerce Clause, pointing out that racial barriers thrown up by Jim Crow were hampering the free flow of interstate commerce. No Justice of the Supreme Court has ever questioned the correctness of Heart of Atlanta’s holding, including Justice Thomas, who has long urged the Court to dramatically cut back on the recognized reach of the Commerce Clause. For good reason, Heart of Atlanta is a foundational part of our law. Congress must have substantial power to forbid commercial practices – such as racial discrimination – that hinder free trade of goods and services.

Just as important, Heart of Atlanta’s holding that Congress has the power to prohibit racial discrimination by businesses that operate places of public accommodation finds deep support in the text and history of the Fourteenth Amendment. In fact, two Justices in Heart of Atlanta specifically concurred to explain that the Fourteenth Amendment gave Congress the power to enact the public accommodation provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

The framers of the Fourteenth Amendment wrote Section 5 to give Congress authority to regulate the actions of state officials and private actors to protect the liberty and equality of the newly freed slaves and their allies. Acting against the backdrop of efforts to re-establish slavery, as well merciless violence perpetrated by former rebels and white terrorist groups against the freed slaves and their Union allies in the South, the framers sought to ensure that Congress would have broad legislative authority to protect civil rights, whether under attack by private actors or government officials. In fact, Congress’ very first piece of civil rights legislation, the Civil Rights Act of 1866, applied to both state actors and private actors, and it is universally recognized that the Fourteenth Amendment was written to ensure that Congress had the power to pass the 1866 Act. Nothing in this history gave private businesses a free pass to discriminate.

The basic premise of the Fourteenth Amendment – reflected in the text of the Equal Protection Clause – was that the states have a constitutional obligation to protect all persons, citizens and non-citizens alike, an obligation that Congress could enforce. States could not turn a blind eye to criminal or discriminatory acts committed against a disfavored group. As the framers recognized, “[a] State denies equal protection whenever it fails to give it. Denying includes inaction as well as action.” Thus, when states sat idly by while the freedmen and their allies were murdered, or otherwise had their rights trampled, the Fourteenth Amendment ensured Congress had clear constitutional authority to intervene.

To summarize, you are wrong about the unconstitutionality of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Find another way to criticize it.

“We don’t need your kind “??? Spoken like a true racist. Unfortunately for you and your fellow Paulbots when the main stream media shows the video they won’t be explaining any of what you said they will simply play the part with him saying “the south was right” and how slaves should have been continued to be treated like a commodity and sold to the North because as you know the ‘evil’ mainstream media does not like Ron Paul. He’s finished. Now please resume your cousin loving.

His history is radically mistaken and his proposed solution is morally offensive because it suggests that Black people are property that can be bought and sold. His history is mistaken for a number of reasons.

(1) The South was the aggressor. It was not Lincoln that started the war.
(2) Ron Paul’s suggested proposal was actually proposed numerous times by Lincoln as a representative. Once in November 1861 and then in March 1862. The 1861 proposal was to purchase all of the slaves from the State of Delaware. Delaware was the smallest slave state. The proposal was rejected by the Delaware State government by 1 vote. In 1862, Lincoln proposed legislation to purchase all slaves. It passed with Republican support despite opposition from the Democrats. The Democrats were largely representing the slave states. So it passed, but the offer of money was rejected by slave owners, so the plan stalled. Ron Paul’s “solution” just wasn’t an option at the time, and we have pretty clear evidence of that. Slavery was so ingrained in the Southern culture that there simply was no chance that they would take steps to eliminate it.

I wouldn’t want to take it down. It’s a discussion that needs to be had at some point.

FACT: They love Ron Paul as much as you do. Maybe more. Like they if you sleep with dogs you will get fleas. And by supporting Ron Paul whether you like it or not, you’re sleeping with dogs.

Mary, thank you for providing a voice of reason amid the noise. It is sadder that Ron Paul is attempting to give people some factual background into the history of our country and all some see is a confederate flag background. You try to give people books and all they do is chew on the covers. And yes, the author graduated from Columbia University.

Sometimes I wonder if people actually bothered to listen to what he actually said, or if they just saw a confederate flag and instantly started crying.

Or maybe he’s just dealing with the reality that they were treated as property at the time.

Can’t remember the name, I seen it on Jon Stewart with someone promoting a book. But there was a black man who was a slave, who was freed and that man went and bought his family back from the slave owners 1 at a time.

Do you think he viewed his family as a commodity, or do you think maybe he was dealing with the reality of the time, and thought that the freedom of his family was more important?

You are the racist.

Where does a website that caters to a single race get off on calling other people racists?

This website is racist.

Apparently anyone who talks about the civil war is a racist.

But the guy calling everyone krackers is not.

You are an ignorant piece of s**t.

If you care about racism, then why do you like the guy who calls people krackers?

Ron Paul claims the Civil War shouldn’t have happened but guess what? That was the reality at the time. So are you now admitting Ron Paul IS nuts for saying the Civil War was wrong? No matter how you spin it his campaign will soon come to a grinding halt.

“The Industrial Revolution had already made slavery irrelevant in the North and the US was basically the last Western power to abolish slavery in their own country – so yes, it was on it’s way out.”

I’m sorry, but there’s very little evidence that it was on its way out. Quite the contrary, there is evidence that the South was resisting integration into the industrial economy of the North, a major factor in their secession. As of 1860 the percentage of Southern families that owned slaves has been estimated to be 43 percent in the lower South, 36 percent in the upper South and 22 percent in the border states that fought mostly for the Union. This statistic comes from James G. Randall and David Donald’s book “Civil War and Reconstruction”.

Southern concerns included not only economic loss but also fears of racial equality. The Texas Declaration of Causes for Secession said that the non-slave-holding states were “proclaiming the debasing doctrine of equality of all men, irrespective of race or color”, and that the African race “were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race”. Alabama secessionist E. S. Dargan warned that whites and free blacks could not live together; if slaves were emancipated and remained in the South, “we ourselves would become the executioners of our own slaves. To this extent would the policy of our Northern enemies drive us; and thus would we not only be reduced to poverty, but what is still worse, we should be driven to crime, to the commission of sin.”

In any case, I agree that the Civil War was one of the worst things that happened to our country and it could’ve been avoided, but Lincoln and the Northern States were not in the wrong nor were they the primary culprits of the Civil War. As to why the War was fought, well South Carolina first seceded arguing for States Rights for Slave owners in the South, but complained about States Rights in the North with respect to the Fugitive Slave Act, claiming that Northern states were not fulfilling their federal obligations under the Constitution. All the alleged violations of the rights of Southern states were related to slavery.

You are in denial that the Ron Paul campaign is a sinking ship.

“Also, the British Empire did eliminate slavery without a war. The U.S. could have as well.”

This is a very bad argument. The British Empire was very different from the United States economically and culturally. Nevertheless, the U.S. could’ve ended slavery peacefully, but the South refused.

4 northern states had slavery throughout the war, and they weren’t freed before or during the war.

Lincoln tried to buy the slaves just as Ron Paul talks about and is apparently being called racist in some of those states, but it failed because the war had already started, and it was pushed as a way of trying to end the war quicker, which none of the 4 states agreed with.

They argued that in the middle of a war was not the best time to do it, and that the restructuring of the economics would in fact hurt the war effort.

Lincoln only cared about the issue at all because he wanted people to focus on slavery rather than the other issues.

But apparently, according to this website knowing history means you are a racist.

sinking from what? you didn’t watch the video! did you? This video is just going to get him more support.

Slaves were, directly or indirectly, kidnapped free people. Your argument is that kidnappers should be paid off and that ends the matter completely. You still cannot accept the fact that ALL men are endowed by their creator with inalienable rights, even up to today. Your argument implies that it is OK even today, to kidnap people into slavery, if you can get a geographical enclave to vote by majority rule that some people deserve to own other people.

If Ron Paul was found in a Ku Klux Klan outfit holding a noose, many of these Ron Paul followers (including the supposed Black ones) would find a way to defend him and criticize the photographer or writer. You can’t reason the overzealous and irrational.

The Civil War has been over for more than 100 years. The man I am speaking of lived through it, that is dealing with reality.

Ron Paul is dealing with HISTORY.

Get a clue.

And btw, the simple fact that you think it’s about Ron Paul the person only goes to show just how much you don’t get it.

Furthermore, the majority of intelligent people are sick and tired of stupid crap like this article and people who throw around the race card.

Except that his solution is morally offensive and his history is wrong. It’s morally offensive because, like I’ve stated earlier in the thread, it assumes that Black people are property that can be bought and sold. His history is mistaken because his proposal wasn’t an option at the time. In fact, it was tried by Lincoln, passed in the Congress, but was rejected by Southern slaver owners. Ron Paul just doesn’t understand what the world was like at the time, especially in the South.

Vote for Ron Paul because 8 year-old prostitutes should be able to buy healthcare insurance using gold certificates as money they make selling drugs in school.

F**K RON PAUL.

That is all.

Lincoln tried (tor purchase and free all slaves) in 1862. Southern slave-owners refused. Furthermore, the proposed “solution” buys into the racist ideology that Black people can legitimately be bought and sold. This is why it makes sense to call him a neo-confederate.

“Sometimes I wonder if people actually bothered to listen to what he actually said, or if they just saw a confederate flag and instantly started crying.”

I listened, and he said a lot of false things and some morally appalling things.

I like the video. I’m glad people are talking about it. There are many issues about the Civil War that are never discussed and they should be.

You are one of the more irrational people I’ve ever come across in my life, and that includes the internet. Who cares if you don’t like it, it’s not as if you have any real clue about history or government to begin with. If this kind of video makes you call someone a racist, then your opinion is basically worthless and you are unable to look at things intelligently.

Meanwhile, all you have is name calling and guilt by association. Calling people uncle toms, crackers and all kinds of nonsense.

All the while posting on a websites that is dedicated to a single race. “Black America” it says, but if it was “White America” you’d be posting links about how they are all racist.

In the end, you prove Ron Paul right about what is the real racism in this country, and you are too ignorant to even realize it. It is this website and people such as yourself who create the racism in this world. YOU VIEW PEOPLE IN TERMS OF GROUPS, RATHER THAN INDIVIDUALS. YOU ARE THE RACIST.

No vote for Obama little black girls can be shot in drug raids! White Supremacist Vote for Obama he is going to Bomb Africa. look what he did in Libya!! he handed it to the Racist Tribes of Benghazi and now there is ethnic Cleansing going on .. want to kill black people vote Obama! tired of Brown People? Obama is deporting everyone even black American Children send them to Columbia.. Go Obama! With a Black Guy leading the Country we can burn bill of rights and make sure no Fredrick Douglass or Martin Luther KIng jr ever spring up again… Kill those Black People by voting for Obama ..

Such as?

Brian, I don’t believe you’re racist, but I find it ironic that people believe being black or having black heritage or black family prevents you from being racist.

The easiest way to not be racist is simply to stop viewing people as belonging to groups and start viewing people as individuals with individual freedoms, rights, and responsibility. Treating everyone as a free individual is the highest form of respect one can pay to their fellow humans.

This racist coward Ron Paul.

I hate a dishonest coward, just say you was racist and get it over with.

Keep trying to spin it but you’re never going to redeem him! It’s over no matter how hard you try or how many claims you make about a majority liking him. He’s a two time loser working on lose number 3 , number four in the polls for a four man race.
BTW-I’m glad to see multiple users have now uploaded the confederate flag video to their accounts seeing as how the Paul campaign is desperately scrambling in vain to get the first one removed/make excuses for it.

“the Civil War was not fought over slaves”

This is so absurdly false, it’s hard to believe people are trumpetting it. All the alleged violations of the rights of Southern states were related to slavery. See the official declaration by South Carolina, “Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union”

Historian James McPherson writes concerning states’ rights and other non-slavery explanations:
“While one or more of these interpretations remain popular among the Sons of Confederate Veterans and other Southern heritage groups, few professional historians now subscribe to them. Of all these interpretations, the state’s-rights argument is perhaps the weakest. It fails to ask the question, state’s rights for what purpose? State’s rights, or sovereignty, was always more a means than an end, an instrument to achieve a certain goal more than a principle.”

It’s great that they put their motivations in writing. It makes it easier to refute bulls**t.

It cost more money and many more lives to have a war to free the slaves.

It wouldn’t have been that hard to prevent the war. All you have to do is stop the numbers from being so evenly. At first, you start off paying a higher price for the slaves. As more and more states get rid of slavery, then the price can start to come down, and it will put even more pressure on the remaining states.

Because as more states change, the overall group of states becomes weaker, and there will be less resistance. By the time you get to the more stubborn states on the issue, you have much more leverage at the table. You can even start to offer less money, due to the difference in leverage. By the last state, they will probably be jumping at offers because the writing is on the wall, and the longer they wait, the less they will get.

In order to flip a state, you do not need to have 100% unanimous consent. You just need to appeal to the majority within that state. There will surely be those who resist, but so long as you can keep the state itself as a government from going, such small pockets of resistance will die out rather quickly.

Change does not happen in an instant, and if you try to think of the issue in terms of just 1 day it’s abolished then you are mistaken. Didn’t happen that way with the Civil War either. You just need to set course in the right direction.

It could have been done that way, but it wasn’t. Hindsight is 20/20 but that doesn’t mean you can’t learn from it.

It’s not racism, it’s history.

Your “As a minority…” introduction is completely irrelevant and is merely an attempt to generate credibility. I thought I’d point that out.

I always find it surprising that young people are the majority of Paul’s supporters. I would think it would be people with children who’d be Paul’s biggest supporters. I have two boys, 6 and 7 and I can’t imagine leaving them a world that’s on the same path as it is now. Only Paul seems to want them to have their birthright as Americans, freedom and prosperity. While we have the Patriot Act and NDAA, we’re not Americans, are we? Americans are free. Americans have rights – at least that’s what they tell foreigners right before we bomb them to ‘help them be free’.

I sorry you had my attention on your previous posts until now. I enjoy Ron on the debates for you to sit there and type that people are throwing around the race card. Come’on. The man excepts donations from people with white supremacy ties. Disgusting racist things were said on his news letter. He associates with people who most would consider racist. I’m not understanding why can’t understand why some non white people would be cautious about voting for him.

You have to understanding that it wasn’t that long ago that blacks were being beaten and killed by racist who were protected by the local police and sheriffs. We are only talkng 50years not even a life time. When people like you ignore that reality and pisses folk off. Last year Gov. Haley Barbour stated he doesn’t remember the civil rights movement being that bad in Mississippi. I hope in intends to end the war on drugs and pardon non violent drug offenders and protect our borders here and accept the fact that Israel is an independant coutry and not an annex to the U.S.

Saying he’s against the war entirely is rather empty. The South was against the war as well. They would’ve much rather preferred to be able to own their slaves without opposition.

His “solution” is more telling. It assumes that Black people are property that can be bought and sold. Anyone who recognizes that people aren’t property, will immediately see what’s so offensive about his “solution”.

The U.S. and British Empire were not identical therefore any analogy is invalid?

That is a very poor argument.

“The sad part of this story is that the author of this piece probably has a college degree and yet, zero knowledge of the civil war.”

“But then, the war did not start over slavery, nor did the south “attack” the north. As stated in a previous post, the number one important issue of that war was federalism.”

I won’t claim that you have “zero knowledge of the civil war”, but you’re certainly wrong about this. In fact, South Carolina’s justification for secession found in the official doc**ent “Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union”, argued for states’ rights for slave owners in the South, but contained a complaint about states’ rights in the North in the form of opposition to the Fugitive Slave Act, claiming that Northern states were not fulfilling their federal obligations under the Constitution. All the alleged violations of the rights of Southern states were related to slavery.

By far, the claim that the Civil War was over the issue of States Rights, or in your words “federalism” is by far the weakest non-slavery justification. As Historian James McPherson puts it:

“While one or more of these interpretations remain popular among the Sons of Confederate Veterans and other Southern heritage groups, few professional historians now subscribe to them. Of all these interpretations, the state’s-rights argument is perhaps the weakest. It fails to ask the question, state’s rights for what purpose? State’s rights, or sovereignty, was always more a means than an end, an instrument to achieve a certain goal more than a principle.”

Ron Paul is the personification of Mark Twain’s quote here:

“The self taught man seldom knows anything accurately, and he does not know a tenth as much as he could have known if he had worked under teachers, and besides, he brags, and is the means of fooling other thoughtless people into going and doing as he himself has done.”

“Or maybe he’s just dealing with the reality that they were treated as property at the time.”

If Ron Paul was “dealing with the reality”, he would’ve known that his proposed solution was tried in 1862 and failed because it was rejected by Southern slave owners.

If he truly believed that black people weren’t property his answer to who was in the right during the Civil War would’ve been different. He would’ve said something along these lines:

“Given the fact that black people are human beings and not property, the federal government had the authority under the constitution to protect their life, liberty, and property, which implies overriding State laws or policies that deprive them of it. And the Federal government would’ve been justified in doing so.”

But, he did not say that.

The KKK are and were democrats. They didn’t just want people to be racist and segregate, they wanted to use the government in order to promote what they felt was the morality of the day. They forced people to their views and morals.

And yet, people don’t seem to have a problem with the government pushing the morals of the majority so long as they agree with the morality.

And if you say well maybe people should be able to choose their own morals and have a bit of freedom in case they disagree, well we get called immoral for it by ignorant people who can’t see beyond black and white extremes.

It’s pathetic, but that’s the battle people are faced with if they wish to be free.

“Ron Paul is dealing with HISTORY.”

His HISTORY is wildly inaccurate.

It disgusting how easily some people on here dismiss the distortions that Jim Crow brought onto the scene. This was government intervention! The government essentially enslaved blacks once again after the Civil War. THAT’s the reason for the segregation! A century of government-sponsored racism. More government is not the solution.

No it’s not, it’s just deeper than a 5th grade social studies book.

Sadly it has come to this. Thousands of black people out there that were not even remotely close to being slaves that just cant let things go. If you even did a hair of research your would find out that Ron Paul is far less racist than this website dedicated to only black people. Ron Paul does not segregate people into groups like this website has.

He would’nt because he is far from racist.

Reading through the comments on this post I see one consistent thing, Racist Black People!

Wow! Now that is a sophmoric and biased article if I have ever seen one. First of all, the Mises Institute is dedicated to the study of politics, philosophy and economics. There are two members in the entire organization that may have wrote a few pieces that criticize Lincoln’s policies and increasing the power of federal govt to enforce tarriffs. You can’t paint an entire organization with such a broad brush. I am a left libertarian and read several writings at the Mises institute. He opposes the 1964 civil rights act for philosophic reasons. Namely that the govt can not force a private business owner to serve everyone. Tell me, would you want to eat at a neo-confederates restaurant anyways? If a business chose not to serve people because of race, they would have a smaller customer base, they would be subject to bad press, protestors would stage sit ins (granted the owner can call the police to kick them out, but the owners time would be occupied constantly trying to stop staged protests. His seats would also be filled with customers he refuses to serve). Compare this to a restauranteur that doesn’t discriminate. Paul simply believes that change can only happen in the hearts of man and from civil disobedience. It can not come from top down govt order.

Why shouldn’t he accept the donations? Is the money better off in the hands of the racists? If the NCAAP gets a check from them, do you think they are going to give it back either? Hell no, put that money to good use. I’ll take every penny a racist wants to give me.

All that stuff about the donations is dumb. By this logic, you basically give that guy the ability to knock any candidate he wants out of the race with $500. It’s dumb.

And the millions of dollars that is donated is suddenly meaningless. Only this single donation matters? It’s crap, and the only reason people bring it up is because they are unable to address him intelligently on the issues.

Especially in light of the millions of dollars being donated to every other candidate by big wealthy corporations.

I’m not ignoring anything. The problem was southern democrats who thought their morals should be law and pushed onto everyone.

The problems people have with the Civil Rights is that in a SMALL portion of it, they are pushing morals on the people, just in the other direction. When the classic conservative position is that government should not push it’s morals onto the people in any direction. That is it not a proper role of the government to push such things onto people.

I would never in a million years support Jim Crow laws, or any such laws like that. Neither does Ron Paul. States do have rights, but it’s the federal governments JOB to step in when states infringe on peoples rights. As such the Civil Rights Act is perfectly constitutional and 100% right when it repeals Jim Crow laws. While some may have claimed it was states rights, it’s a simple matter of the constitution to show it was not. There is an OBVIOUS VICTIM to what the Jim Crow laws did.

Btw, did you know the sheriff in that story is no longer racist? He’s not sheriff anymore obviously, but he actually tries to make up for his sins. He had a change of heart. And it’s a change in heart that really tackles racism, not government.

Look at this website, how it identifies to the group and not the individual. It actually promotes racism unwittingly. The ignorance of racism is to view people in terms of groups rather than as individuals. It’s time we treat people not in terms of groups but as individuals.

While the author is absolutely correct in Ron Paul having these beliefs, I believe they are completely wrong in their understanding of his reasoning.

Let’s start with the Civil War. It had been understood since the founding of the country that the issue of slavery was going to cause great discomfort before the South gave it up, but they wouldn’t have joined the Union if it had been brought up. That a war would have likely happened, has never been Ron Paul’s point, it was the way in which Lincoln handled the war that forever changed the office of POTUS and Congress in general. The power structure defined in the Constitution was broken, and we never looked back. The idea to buy the slaves by the way was Lincoln’s and he stole it from Britain as that is how they solved their slavery issue, unfortunately Lincoln couldn’t convince the northern states that it was in their best interest and the south didn’t like the idea period.

As for the CRA, Ron Paul has always been against it because of a very simple reason. The segregation in the south was because of state mandated Jim Crow laws that forced business owners to be bigots. That the federal government should stop states from stepping on civil liberties is fine, that the federal government chose to take the illegal state laws, turn them 180 degrees and again force them down the private citizens throat was not the answer. A government that thinks it has the right to tell people what they should believe, and uses force to do it, is more of a danger to me and my family than some bigot not wanting my white butt in his store.

I don’t mind in the least if an author that wishes to honestly debate a candidates ideas, but throwing up rhetorical strawmen and shooting them down is just dishonest.

Oh, on the issue of the govt buying the slaves…This is what the british govt did. The govt bought the slaves and gave them their legal freedom. There was no civil war and no deaths of 600,000 soldiers and 1.03 million casualties. Read about the Slavery Abolition Act of 1833.

The states rights argument was in reference to the states being able to succeed peacefully from the union, not slavery.

Slavery was certainly an issue for the southern states, but this is actually the reason why slavery wasn’t outlawed during the framing of the constitution. Because the southern states would have never joined the Union to begin with.

Lincoln himself said that he only wanted to preserve the union, and said that if he could save the union without freeing the slaves he would. He was talking about the above. 4 states in the Union had slavery during the Civil War. The Emancipation Proclamation did not free all slaves, it only freed the slaves in the states that were rebelling in the eyes of the Union(basically nobody). Slavery itself was not abolished until after the war, when the southern states surrendered and rejoined the Union.

So again, while Slavery was an issue and heated topic of the day and certainly played a role in the split of the states etc, it was NOT the actual reason the war was fought.

Those rights came about because at the time, we had a majority who would have happily used their social supremacy to oppress people of color. Your perspective on race is the product of only having been around for the last 20 years or less.

Poorly reasoned. Skinheads represent an implied threat to safety and violate many race-neutral dress codes in the way they dress. Business owners who barred all black visitors from visiting their restaurants did so effectively in collusion with other to rid entire towns and business districts of Black visitors in an implied conspiracy, most infamously in the examples of “sundown towns” where entire towns would so conspire. There is no equivalent “anti-skinhead” or “anti-white” history in the United States.

In 1862?

I’m guessing you are talking about after the war started, when Lincoln tried to get one of the northern states to abolish slavery for pay.

He did so saying that it would end the war quicker and be cheaper, but they concluded that was false. Because the war had already started, and they were on the side of the Union, that it would only make those states weaker economically in the adjustment, and that during the middle of a war with the south was not an appropriate time for it.

No clue what you are talking about with Southern Slave owners since 1962 was in the middle of the war. The only thing that happened otherwise was the Emancipation Proclamation.

The constitution did not say what you are talking about at the time. Saying such would be historically inaccurate.

I have seen many a Ron Paul supporter tell people that “if you believe X would have led to Y, you shouldn’t vote.”

Well, if you believe that a business’s discriminatory policies would have led it to be shut down in the 50s and 60s due to “unpopular opinion,” as if the beliefs of yesteryear were the same as they are today and hadn’t been tempered by the civil rights movement, then YOU shouldn’t vote.

Just another example of the Paulbot’s revised history.

The real question is if racism has been decreased (assuming you think it has) because the people think it’s wrong or because the law says so. In other words, is the said law just a representation of what the people agree on or are the people’s opinions solely based on the law?
If the former, then the restrictions that the law brings upon business is nothing but an unnecessary burden which the free market would implement anyway. (Remember, if the people think racism is wrong, a racist business wouldn’t last long).
But if the latter is true and the people think racism is wrong SOLELY because the law said so but they themselves don’t think to be the case, then we have a MUCH deeper problem in society and the law would inevitably not find success in practice.

I personally think the former’s the case.

Please save me that bulls**t. I don’t have kids yet Iwillbfree but I wouldn’t see color. And the Civil War was not totally about Slavery. That was used later on by Lincoln and the North to recruit blacks for the Union Army, and to turn confederate slaves against their confederate owners. The North had slaves to buddy!!!!

They weren’t arguing about slavery at Fort Sumter man……hahahahahahaha. Sorry but i’m just not the racist that you think I am, and neither is Ron Paul. I will say this, Ron Paul is the only potential one that would steal left wing votes from Obama so its sad that the nominee will probably be gingrich or romney. Guess I won’t be voting because those three, and Obama are all the same…….

Not if he’s running a licensed business that tax payers (like the Black guy) support through infrastructure improvements, like power, sewers, water, water purification, streets, sidewalks, food testing, business loans, all of which make said restaurant business possible.

Wake up. The whole world is interconnected. Nobody stands alone. Nobody makes it without everyone else’s help.

“No clue what you are talking about with Southern Slave owners since 1962 was in the middle of the war. The only thing that happened otherwise was the Emancipation Proclamation.”

See the article, “Abraham Lincoln’s Audacious Plan” by historian Richard Striner

“The constitution did not say what you are talking about at the time. Saying such would be historically inaccurate.”

The 5th Amendment existed at the time…

Donna go bow down and workship your man Obama. You know your voting based strictly on racism or ignorance??? You see a confederate flag and your anger burns!!!! hahaha the north and unioners had slaves to even after the war DONNA.

I’m not racist Donna because Ron Paul is the only one I would vote for out of everybody. If he doesn’t win the nomination which he most likely won’t, I won’t be voting in the main election because the choice will be between TWO of the same kind!!!

Your so ignorant you think there is a difference between Obama and Romney and Gingrich. Sorry but you should get with reality.

Typical misleading crap.

Watch the video, you’ll come away with a very different idea of what Paul is saying.

This sc**sack blogger is insinuating that Ron Paul is saying the South was right about slavery– He is not.

Not in a Ron Paul district.

I think that most Ron Paul supporters have their minds scrambled by the time they spent in daycare, and public school. They have confused notion of what constitutes “freedom”, and can’t logically separate freedom from racism. People like this are easily led sheep

Do you really think that we went to war for slavery??? Man you obviously never researched past what you were taught in elementary school. I used to think the civil war was about slavery in the 5th grade to!!! hahahahaha

Would any Ron Paul supporter care to point to a place and time in history where there has been a pure free market economy? I’d like to get an idea if I’d want to live there or not.

Afgahanistan comes to mind. If you removed the US and let the government collapse.

Not if heir only offense is ow they cut their hair.

Hahahahahaha I don’t know if you know this but the North had slaves to Donna!!!! Your boy Abe, he was a slave owner. Freeing the slaves was his strategy to get Blacks to fight for the Union later on in the war!!!! Sorry to have to tell you about reality!!! Lincoln didn’t start a huge war premised on Slavery, it was premised on the South not wanting to be taxed and regulated by a federal government.

“Lincoln himself said that he only wanted to preserve the union…”

Lincoln did say this, but it does not follow from this that slavery was not the cause of the war. Everything else in that paragraph you said was true, but your conclusion just doesn’t follow from it. So, Lincoln wanted to preserve the Union from secession by the Southern States. The Southern States seceded in large part due to perceived threats to their institution of slavery and its economic and cultural impact (Just read the actual arguments and justifications by the South at the time! It’s not hard to find.) For example, South Carolina seceded prior to Lincoln’s inauguration primarily due to fear that Lincoln would stop the expansion of Slavery into new states, fating them to perpetual minority in the House of Representatives (This was a common complaint of the Southern States). This is simply what happened.

“So again, while Slavery was an issue and heated topic of the day and certainly played a role in the split of the states etc, it was NOT the actual reason the war was fought.”

Slavery was the reason and justification for secession. Official doc**ents explicitly say so. It’s no conspiracy that virtually every academic historian agrees with me on this (Not just 5th grade Social Studies Teachers). The evidence is just overwhelming. The claim that slavery was not the main reason needs to be called out for what it is, historical revisionism.

The morally appalling thing refers to his “solution” since it still presumes that black people are property that can be bought and sold instead of human beings that deserve to have their rights protected.

The false thing(s) is the premise of his “solution”. (1) He failed to mention that his proposal was rejected by southern slave owners in 1862. (2) He failed to mention who was the aggressor of the war. (3) He claimed that slavery wasn’t the main cause of Civil War, which virtually every historian disagrees with, etc…

The West. San Francisco proves Free market works.. New York has always been a controled market. but the gold rush broke the back of that control and allowed for many New People to rise to wealth. and Continues as the west is the market you can get rich in while in the east its more about who you know.

Here’s a rough transcript (I’m not a professional transcriptionist) of what Ron Paul says in the referenced clip:

“You know there was an abolitionist movement in the north that got a lot of attention back in the 1850s leading up to the civil war. But there was an abolitionist in the northeast – I think it was Vermont – I have a lot of respect for. You probably recognize his name, he was Lysander Spooner. Spooner was a definite abolitionist – he was a northerner he was Yankee – but when it came down to the war, in spite of all those identifications, he identified with the south. He said the south was on the right side of the issue. And yet, the war advanced regardless, and it was pursued of course with so much pain and suffering.

“And the country was lead to believe, and every one of our public schools since then have preached and harped and pounded it into our kids that the only issue that was involved was slavery. And yet that was the excuse, and that was the rabble rousing issue, and you can’t deny that was an important issue, but that really wasn’t the issue why the war was fought in my estimation.

“You know there were over 11 countries up until that time and shortly thereafter in this hemisphere, North and South America, 11 different countries that had slavery. Every one of them got rid of slavery without war. There were different vehicles, there was legislation, and one of the techniques they used was to literally buy slaves’ freedom. Which makes a lot of sense when you think of the cost of war. Not only the 600,000-700,000 American deaths, the loss of liberty, the untold cost, so there must have been a tremendous motivation for that war to be fought.

“Of course, I see it in historic terms. Because, in the beginning of our country, there was a major debate. There were those who were the Jeffersonians, and those who were the Hamiltonians. Hamilton wanted a strong centralized government, and Jefferson wanted a decentralized government, and in many ways they sort of split, and that sort of set the stage for problems later on.

“But Hamilton didn’t really have his way completely, because although they did have a central bank early on, Jefferson got rid of it one time and Jackson got rid of it another time, but the ideas that they [Hamiltonians] perused basically were protectionism, which helped northern manufacturers, and they also advocated a central banking system, and support and subsidies to big business, and those were the three major points of what Hamilton believed in. But really and truly it was exactly what Lincoln’s program was as well. So when they saw this opportunity, they used the issue of slavery to precipitate the war, and literally cancel out the whole concept of individual choice.

“And you know I think one of the most important parts of the declaration of independence says governments are instituted among men and they derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. So if you have a true republic, the consent of the people is very important. And it was the consent of the states that allowed the United States to come together. So without the consent, it doesn’t exist.

“So they really threw, through the civil war, threw that out completely and rejected the notion that the consent came from the people, and the individual states, but rather it came from the monolithic more powerful centralized government, and unfortunately, that is what we have had to live with for these so many years and has given us so many more problems…..” (fade out)

While we don’t have the luxury of knowing what he was discussing before or after this, so this passage may be somewhat out of context, we can learn a lot just from what he says here, about what issue he is addressing and what motivations we can ascribe to him here.

First, he is in no way supporting the South on the issue of slavery. It is very clear that he believes slavery was wrong, “you can’t deny that it was an important issue” but he rightly points out that there had to be a whole lot more than just slavery for this war to be fought. Slavery was ended elsewhere without war, so why did it take war in the US? Clearly slavery was not the whole reason for the war.

He then talks about viewing the war in historic terms, meaning that the true causes become clearer when you consider the full history leading up to the war, not just the simplistic “North fought the South to free the slaves” mantra that we’ve had drummed into us since grade school. What he addresses is that early on in US history, there was a political conflict over the role of government, that was settled with a compromise. The conflict was over how much of a role the Federal Government should play, versus the individual States. Remember, at the time people were more likely to view themselves as New Yorkers, Virginians, Vermonters, etc.. than Americans. Hamilton wanted more centralized government, Jefferson wanted less government. And there was a lot of posturing back and forth on this issue for some 70 years before the Civil War. Ron Paul continues to point out that the “more government” folk didn’t get their way until the role of the federal government was expanded under Lincoln, and after.

The south was 100% morally wrong and indefensible on the issue of Slavery. But they were 100% in the right on the issue of secession. They had the right to leave the Union and work out their problems on their own. And Lincoln’s refusal to allow them to secede, driven by his desire for a more expansive centralized government, made war inevitable, regardless of who fired the first shots. There would have been no war had the North allowed the South to secede, and implode financially when its economic system based on cheap labor failed. In fact, it wasn’t until 2 years into the war that Lincoln emancipated the slaves in ten of the Southern States, and he only did that to hurt the South economically. Lincoln is on record as saying he would have kept slavery if it could have kept the Union. This is acknowledgment by Lincoln himself that slavery was not the ultimate underlying issue in the war. Slavery was a polarizing issue that allowed people to rally to the cause, and it was also a horrible and dehumanizing way to perpetuate an economic system based on cheap labor. But as Ron Paul pointed out, it was an issue that probably could have been dealt with without killing 1 in 30 Americans. Every 5 slaves freed by Lincoln cost the life of one American in that war. That is a dreadful waste, when 11 other nations were able to free their slaves without it costing one life.

This is not revisionist history. It is looking at history through a critical lens, so we can understand mistakes that were made and avoid repeating them.

I’m willing to admit he probably won’t win Donna. But he is the only genuine guys so it is sad. There is something to be said for a 70 something year old man who should be chilling at home on his ass, but cares enough about his country to speak about what is right and run for president. You probably just saw the confederate flag behind him and didn’t really listen to what he had to say and the true meaning of it all. Your quote says it all, THE IMAGE ALONE IS WORTH A THOUSAND WORDS!!!!! I guess what you see is always what you get???? So are you saying when George Bush was on the warship declaring victory in Iraq and mission accomplished he was right???? Because that is what we saw???? Keep being a dumb b***h…….

this man is the most beliveable of all republicans and its sites and pepole like these that make politics such a scary thing for average people… you put up lies and make false accusations because hes standing in front of a confederate flag…. it was the north that made up the lies about why the south went to war and wanted to seperate from the union all they realy wanted was to let states have there own rights and to not answer to hippocritical northeners who used slaves to win the war not all southern people owned or wanted slaves they just wanted freedom to make their own choices slavery was coming to an end anyways you should look up more facts before you dont vote for a person becuase a web page puts lies on their site to scare blacks into voting for thier politician Ron Paul is a conservetive repubublican who belives in limited goverment and giving states the right to make and enforce thier own laws just as the constitution was written also to gived every man no mater color race religion or creed the inaliable right to life liberty and the pursuite of happiness. The federal goverment has no right to make life decisions for pepole the only thing they are charged with is to protect our borders pave our highways and to keep peace though out the world.. besides all this oyu speak of segregation well there was also places in the north that blacks were segregated and you make the claim as if the south were the only place and this was wellafter the civil war dont be tricked into triked int thinking the north had blacks in mind for going to war that was the biggest propaganda ever created to wipe out a pepole and their belives like I said not all southeners belived in slavery and the war was way bigger then that issue

Google “Gary Howard” who happens to be one of the best in the business and afterwards stand by your statement – which of course applies to 90% of campaign personnel – but in the case of a National Press Secretary you are not only misinformed, you are inserting your opinion, which reflects that you are limited in your knowledge of Presidential campaign hierarchies.

My first ex-wife works in politics too – she has been present in the House of Representatives chamber for 20 years and has never missed a session.

She happens to be as black as night,
and the mother of my two kids – so leave your race card with the parking attendant.

The internet.

The comments here are exceedingly more interesting than the article itself. This author
has headlined two anti-Ron Paul blogs in the last 48 hours – thereby receiving more internet
traffic than he would ordinarily get.

One thing these comments prove, though not surprisingly, is that there is no difference
between white racists and black racists. They are all cut from the same cloth, and are an
excellent case in point when I teach my children about ignorance, prejudice and tribal behavior.

I tell my kids who are 50 / 50 mix “That is exactly what you DO NOT EVER want to be like.

Ever. And they get it – more than many “adults” that are posting here. Nothing has really changed.

I’m not really sure what part of the slaves were being freed in the process you do not understand.

(1) In 1862 the Civil War had already started. It was tried in a state with the pretense that it would end the war quicker and be cheaper. That premise was proven false, because it was states in the UNION that he was talking too, not southern slave owners. They concluded that it wouldn’t end it faster, and that during the middle of a war was an inappropriate time that would weaken the Union. You are completely off base.

(2) Not even sure what this matters.

(3) As I stated in another post, this is also false.
The states rights argument was in reference to the states being able to succeed peacefully from the union, not slavery.

Slavery was certainly an issue for the southern states, but this is actually the reason why slavery wasn’t outlawed during the framing of the constitution. Because the southern states would have never joined the Union to begin with.

Lincoln himself said that he only wanted to preserve the union, and said that if he could save the union without freeing the slaves he would. He was talking about the above. 4 states in the Union had slavery during the Civil War. The Emancipation Proclamation did not free all slaves, it only freed the slaves in the states that were rebelling in the eyes of the Union(basically nobody at the time, but made it more likely for black people in the south to rebel against the south). Slavery itself was not abolished until after the war, when the southern states surrendered and rejoined the Union.

So again, while Slavery was an issue and heated topic of the day and certainly played a role in the split of the states etc, it was NOT the actual reason the war was fought.

I may tell my two children the same. (They are also 50/50 as you may call it, but I see them both as 100% awesome)

But states had a right to secede. And the war itself was over if the states had a right to do so. That is the actual history.

Nobody is denying slavery had a large role. But it’s completely false that the entire thing was fought solely for the purpose of ending slavery. It wasn’t.

Even more importantly, saying such doesn’t make someone a racist.

If you know your history the civil war was NOT because of slavery. Racism is a terrible thing and I wish it didn’t exist!! At the same time No ONE should be forced by the government to charge a cretin price or serve a specific food. Everyone should be free to charge and serve who what when and where they want. I think it would be very low of someone to not serve someone due to skin color (Or any other factor) for that matter. If there was a shop that didn’t serve someone due to a race sex or religious fact I WOULD NOT GO THERE. If the government can tell you who to serve then why cant they tell you what hours to keep? END ALL BE ALL QUESTION….Where does it start and where does it end?

You’re exactly right. We deserve equal rights anywhere. Regardless of who you are. If you are acting as a respectable citizen and customer then you deserve to eat where ever you want, but if you are a Klan member who is destroying a business then you do not deserve equal rights, the same thing goes for a black customer making ruckus in an establishment doesn’t deserve to stay.

If the cival war was about slavery then speak on 2 points to change my mind…..

1.The Emancipation Proclamation freed the slaved Southern states where the North held no authority at that time and left slavery alone in the Northern states with slavery.

2. The Emancipation Proclamation wasn’t made until the war was half through the war AND it was sighed in by a man with SLAVES!!!(Lincoln)

Talk about selective listening. What Dr. Paul said was that 11 other countries had slavery at the time. The US is the only one that that ended slavery through war. He is saying that we didn’t have to go to war to end slavery, we could have done so more peaceably, and that ending slavery wasn’t the only driving force behind the Civil War. When he states that The South was on the right side of the issue, he means that States Rights should not have been abolished – after all it was the intent of our founding fathers that each state have their own rights and abilities to govern within their borders as they saw fit. He is saying that we could have effectively abolished slavery WITHOUT abolishing States Rights OR fighting an expensive war.

Some slaves were happy being slaves.

Take that ‘I DON’T SEE COLOR’ garbage somewhere else because I don’t want to hear it!!!

YOU WILL SEE A LOT OF COLOR IF YOUR DAUGHTER OR SON WOULD DATE A BLACK MAN OR WO-MAN!

YOU CAUCASOIDS ARE SOME SICK, LYING SERPENTS!

SO SO SO CORRECT!!

This old wrinkled up yankee is DONE!

Stick a fork in that boy!

A dumb negroid would vote for david duke, if he was running today!

negroids are so fuked up!

I DIDN’T KNOW NEGROIDS ARE SO BRAINWASHED!!!

Your argument is based on the premise that society is not a reflection of the government’s actions; that society changes irrespective of what is going on in the government. This is patently false. The reason “society became less racist” is not because of a gradual realization on the South’s part that blacks were not inferior. It was as a result of the villanization of slaveholders and racists, made possible by the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments. Therefore, some infringement on property rights WAS in fact necessary to repeal the laws of slavery and Jim Crow. Moreover, society tends to swing back and forth between accepted behavior. With the possibility of excluding blacks still on the books, whites may decide later on that blacks are untouchables, and begin to re-frequent places with Whites Only signs. To assume that the current situation, which is a result of everything that you are arguing against, would be exactly the same had the past not occurred, is absurd. The market would only punish people from excluding patrons from restaurants, if it became viewed as unpopular and bad to do so. If it was popular, conversely, the market would not correct it.

That racism does not self-correct is evinced by the fact that slavery continued to exist as long as it did. If no infringement on property rights is necessary, then slavery would have continued into perpetuity. Southerners were resistant at the time of the Civil War, after the Civil War, and they continue to be resistant to the idea today. If slavery was not painted as an evil, the North would have gritted their teeth and bore it like they had been doing, because they were still getting rich as a result anyway. Further, the fact that racism does not self-correct is evinced by the fact that institutionalized racism is still a problem today, and whites continue to reap the benefits of it, whether they admit it or not. Institutionalized racism continues because the status quo is such a strong force to be reckoned with. A black man is still 50% less likely to get hired than a white man similarly situated. This, despite the fact that society has “become less racist.”

I also argue that the proposed solutions do not give blacks a chance to voice their opinions to the government, but in fact take away blacks’ agency in their own destiny and the way they are treated. Who can protest at a Whites Only drinking fountain? They know blacks will be angry; they just don’t care. It takes white people to voice the opinion and refuse to drink at a water fountain or eat an establishment for stuff to change. This does not further the cause of the value in our society for our voices to be heard and for justice to prevail.

Damn you don’t even know me and i’m a sick lying serpent. It would go both ways if I were to take out your daughter or your sister. I’m not a racist. But the things that you say, theres not even a between the lines or a maybe, your a pretty sick and discriminatory individual.

Keep believing Abe gave a s**t about the slaves……hahahahaha

Wrong. If the business owner owns the property, then his property rights should be respected. Property owners must pay property taxes and that is their only obligation to society. It does not matter where his products came from as long as he paid for them. Once someone has completely paid for a product, it is their property. Your fallacy is that we all owe our existence to government and therefore all property belongs to government. I can tell you one thing: We are born into this world as FREE beings. It is government that restricts our freedom. Not the other way around.

Are you serious? Sounds like you are projecting yourself onto others. Dr. Paul has a medical degree from Duke!! Not only does it take having an IQ around the top 75% range to get an MD degree, he went to one on the best medical schools in the country. And as they teach those guys in medical school to do, he has forever continued his education. You should be so grateful.

Do you seriously want to discuss his position on the Civil War, which was not even a civil war? READ the Lincoln-Douglas presidential debates that occurred months before that war. READ Lincoln’s inaugural address. READ the Emancipation Proclamation. Look at what the federal government’s policies were at that time towards the native Indian!! My gosh!! Once General Sherman finished butchering the southerners, he and his officers went west to complete the federal governments policy of genocide towards the American Indians. The 1860′s were NOT a time of civil rights!! You swallowed a major freaking lie.

Do you want to really talk about a “self educated” person? There is no better example than Abraham Lincoln himself who NEVER had any formal education AT ALL!!

Because eating at a restaurant has nothing to do with the ideology of the owner.

No, it is not the right of the private property owner of de facto public property to refuse service to anyone based on protected criteria. If you would serve a white man, the 14th Amendment states that I should have equal privileges.

No f**k you audacity of hype.

Restaurants are de facto privately owned establishments for public use. Property rights include the right to use and exclude. You talk of the exclusion, but if ANY member of the public can use it (including, but not limited to, of course the owner)–if, in fact, the very existence of the establishment must depend on the use of members of the public– then it cannot be solely the property owner’s right anymore.

This article is exactly what’s wrong with American politics. It is taking the only decent candidate’s words and twisting them to make him sound like a racist. Ron Paul was supporting civil rights and equality before Obama was even born.

Although there is still discrimination in America, and you should be concerned. However; the issue of discrimination in America has officially transcended color. Whether you’re black, white, yellow, or brown… It doesn’t matter. The only color that matters is green. Those with money have more rights than the rest of us, and that’s what Ron Paul is trying to stop.

Flawed logic. Property owners pay property taxes. Those taxes fund community services. Besides, practically every restaurant has fire insurance. The main purpose of the fire dept is to contain and extinguish the fire so that nearby property belonging to other people is not destroyed.

That’s a completely different problem altogether. Government should not be in the business of giving out loans. Besides, MOST business owners DO NOT get their loans from government but from private lenders. If someone does take a loan from the government, then I agree with you that they should be subject to the terms set forth by the lender. However, it’s unwise to get in business with the government as you’ll always be subject to their demands. The government has a tendency of poorly operating businesses. Look at the post office, Amtrak, FEMA, SS, etc. This is regardless of what party is in power. A handful of people in an office in D.C. can’t possibly know what’s best for business for millions of people. A free market (meaning no help or restriction from government) is the only way to measure what people want. People essentially vote with their dollars. Bringing it full circle: It’s stupid to deny service to people based on race. It’s not just morally wrong, but bad business. Like I said: People vote with their dollars and even the grimiest politicians know better than to turn a vote away. Similarly, a good business owner would be stupid to treat people poorly and turn their dollars away.

What color are skinheads? You ever seen a black one?

Are you sure you’re responding to me? I’m confused what this has to do with my transcript of Ron Paul’s words, or my analysis.

He never stood a chance in the first place dumbass, thats not the point. The fact is he is a seventy something year old man who should be at home sitting on his ass enjoying the later years in his life. But he cares enough about his country that he is out there making an attempt to run for president and speak about the things that are right. Why do you think they give him like 2 questions each GOP debate as opposed to like 15 for the other candidates. Because he talks about the things that they don’t want people to hear. If you want to be free, he is the one who would truly help you keep your freedom. Why don’t you go read Obama’s NDAA Law regarding Military Law being applied to citizens and tell me that isn’t something that George Bush would of passed as well. You can’t because their one and the same. Ron Paul is a different type of dude, he is old school. You obviously don’t care about any school and knowledge hence the bulls**t you post on here.

I know what slavery is, homeboy. I am against slavery. My point is that everywhere else in the world, it was phased out without war. Slaves still cost slaveowners money. Granted, the practice was unethical and it was cheaper than paying a free man for manual labor, but machines later came in as a cheaper alternative to slavery. The war was not fought over slavery but over secession. If the North truly fought for the slaves, then they would have treated the slaves better after the war. That’s not what happened though. Most freed slaves were met with hostility and the Northerners did little to protect them from the unjust Jim Crow laws. You assume that I do not care about slavery and that I am for the oppression of people. I am strongly against it. I am a minority, myself, and I think slavery was the single most embarrassing part of this country. However, the ends did not justify the means in the case of the Civil War. Surely, it was a GREAT thing that slavery was ended, but the destruction of the Republic and the massive loss of lives was the worst possible way to end the practice. There were 11 other countries that practiced slavery and all 11 ended the practice peacefully by buying their freedom.

To champion “states rights” in the south is similar to standing in front of a group of rapists and telling them that they “deserve to have fun too”. They know what that means, as do you. Dr. Paul is a racist, plain and simple. You have to be an idiot to suggest some sort of “payment plan” would have worked for a southern slave owner, because after he is paid his money he has a huge problem. Who is going to do his work now? It is what it was, none of this supposed “delving into the mind of the slave owners” can dilute an already clear picture. The South ( therefore representing the citizens) felt so strongly about slavery and black inferiority that they fought to the death for it. Now, their descendants still harbor some (most) of their bloodline’s long standing beliefs and traditions about blacks but feel the shame of losing the absolute stranglehold they once had, thus the need to find “the real reason” for the Civil War. That book is closed people.

I agree. That was poor judgement on his part, but he is not the flag-waving type. If you actually listened to what he’s consistently said on the matter is that slavery is wrong because it violates his libertarian philosophy. He is against ALL government oppression. I’ve always been against the Republican party, but this man has changed the way I view government. It saddens me that people will let the media spin the message and let their emotions get in the way, because this man takes a sledgehammer and wrecks everything that this government has told us about freedom. We’re born free – the government does not grant it to us. We have to be taught to think differently because even a young child understands this.

P.S. – I’m still anti-Republican Party and he did not choose the backdrop for this speaking engagement.

Shut up b***h. I know that your racist its cool I don’t care, but i’m not. So just go vote for Obama and hate Ron Paul because he stood in front of a Confederate Flag. HAHAHAHAH

Brian, I don’t believe you. If your father is black, so are you. Try again.

Some are so indoctrinated that the not so “civil” war was about slavery, that they cannot comprehend that other perspectives even exist, much less that those perspectives are based on FACTS.

My trailer park?????? Didn’t know I was living in one but now I do man. YOUR A RACIST!!!! RACIST!!! RACIST!!!!

I’m a dumb ass white nigga?!?!?!?! RACIST!!! RACIST!!!

Iwillbfree go f**k yourself!!!!

Anyone who thinks that all those white men from the north fought and died to free slaves are idiots. They obviously would have rather had the slaves kept in the South & out of their neighborhoods. Just the facts. This video above does not support slavery but rather the idea that if the southern states did not want to be in the united states, just who in the federal government had the right to disagree and force them to stay. Slavery is just an excuse to draw attention away from the fact that states were forced to stay for basically the same reason imperialist England took control of other countries. Remember the military was still killing indians for land at the same time; so much for the concern for minorities! Ron Paul never supported buying slaves instead of dying to free them, he simply said nobody really died to free them and certainly if freeing them was such a big priority, why not just buy them? The reason why, again, is that neither really happened. All of this is twisted in it’s meaning and I would like to see the first (missing) part of the speech that I am sure would expose those who created this story.

It appears he is appearing in front of the State of Georgia flag, not a confederate flag. If you are a responsible journalist, you would correct the title to your article.

Where do you make the connection with anything in my comment and racism? I have no idea what either your ethnicity or genetic background entails. I was referring to your baseless trolling and apparent infatuation with a man standing in front of a flag.

A brief synopsis of your third-rate trolling:

Man: “Ron Paul isn’t racist, he consistently decries the fundamental racism inherent in the judicial amd political systems. He is the only presidential candidate who can even admit blacks are prosecuted disproportionally when compared to crime statistics.”

Donna Stevens: “That man is a racist! he said Blacks!”

I have often found that those who inappropriatly and excessively accuse others of racism are often the most racist individuals one could find.

I couldn’t care less whether Ron Paul gets elected president, because it’s merely a position of puppetry. The important thing is that his message is getting out. People across the country from all walks of life are being united under the banners of Personal Liberty and Limited Government, and there is nothing you can do about it. For every piece of trash who drags an honorable man through the gutter while lacking the ability to comprehend even a tenth of what he is about there are five who will carry these messages for future generations.

The Emancipation Proclamation was an executive order issued by Abraham Lincoln. For some bizarre reason, many believe that it “freed” the slaves in the south. To any that take the time to actually read it (and it is very short and simple reading), they know that it in FACT, guarantees those southern states their right to own slaves if they rejoined the union. Lincoln in fact, believed in a WHITE America and wanted to ship ALL BLACKS to colonies in Latin America.

That war was NEVER about civil rights and any who believes so needs to do a serious reality check. The black was only a pawn in a political game. The revisionist history comes out of the north who still delude themselves and who ever is foolish enough to believe them, that racism was and is a southern issue, not theirs too. Such hypocrisy!! Manhattan is built on the graves of thousands upon thousands of slaves. Every slave who came into this country was brokered through the shippers in New York!! And the product of their labor was being milled in the northeast in the new booming textile industry! What a lie that they cared about the black. The abolitionists were QUAKERS – a religious Christian group – and they existed in the south just as they existed in the north. Jim Crow Laws? The race riots of the 60′s were not in the south. They were in the north!!

I’ll say it again, blacks were in the civil war and still are, pawns in a political game. There is ONE and only one man in the presidential race who sees us all as equals and does not exploit the black but rather knows their issues better than any other out there. That is because he is a good, decent, honest, compassionate, caring human being. He has the guts to stand in front of that Confederate flag because he believes in truth and knows that that flag does NOT represent a fight for slavery but rather a fight for HUMAN rights. Over 90,000 blacks fought for the Confederacy.

Make the puzzle of facts FIT.

And yes, this revolution shall occur regardless, and likely in spite of whatever end toward which your misguided attacks are purposed.

The South Carolina results are coming in-Ron Paul-FOURTH place in a FOUR man race. Want some jelly on that toast?

hmmm..the FORMER Georgia state flag had a blue border with the state seal -don’t see that here. And of course it was replaced because it was viewed as a racist symbol.

As a matter of fact, I have, both in New York City and London, England. But your question is problematic even if I hadn’t because while the vast majority of skinheads are likely white they don’t have to be. Your question would only be appropriate if there was something about “the nature” of skinheads that absolutely and without fail always required skinheads to be white. And that’s just not the case.

The problem is that people at that time WERE able to put white only signs up and not have to worry about losing business. Market forces are not moral and that is why the market often fails to bring about good solutions to common problems.

Asian Weekly just picked up this story and added this:

“Ron Paul is just the tip of the iceberg of a big shadowy world of Euro-American supremacists and anti-Semites whose views towards Israel and Iran are indistinguishable from the usual left-wing anti-Israel pro-Palestine crowd, which is another reason Asians should be leery of jumping on the annual boycott Israel event at their college. Ron Pauls picks up some of the minority geeks of all races, but his big base looks a lot like the crowd that backed third party candidate George Wallace in 1968, the guy who stood in the doorway blocking the integration of a school.”

Negatory. Banana Sandwich. Robotic langauge arguing harangued point. Logically consistent intellectual masturbation failing to map onto reality. Sniff. Snide remark made. In closing, uninspired inspirational comment.

Negatory. Banana Sandwich. Robotic langauge arguing harangued point. Logically consistent intellectual masturbation failing to map onto reality. Sniff. Snide remark made. In closing, uninspired inspirational comment.

Well very interesting for a guy who wants to free everyone in prison who was charged for non-violent drug related charges. I am not quite sure of the percentages, but I am sure that means more than half the black males in prison. He stands up and announces to very unenthusiastic South Carolina audiences that the drug enforcement in this country is racist because a much higher percentage of black drug users are arrested than white drug users. Sounds like a racist to me – NOT. Yah all racists want to free black men from prison.

He may have an inordenant number of rednecks connected to his real party, likely because those are the people who like their isolated existencee in isolated communities without government interference. That being said, he in no way sounds like a racist to me. I think alot of the people posting here owe it to themselves to spend half as much time visiting youtube and listening to the actual mans words in their entirety.

Lincoln used paid emancipation policy to end slavery in Washington DC in 1862, why not for the rest of the country and avoid over 600,000 deaths, plus another 50,000 Southern civilians, many of whom where black? This was the course followed by England when it ended slavery.

Lincoln knew that any attempt to resupply Fort Sumter would bring on a war. He was advised by his top military commander and the commander of the fort to abandon Sumter and his entire cabinet agreed, save one. The governor of South Carolina was repeatedly assured by the administration, including Sec. of State Seward that Sumter would be abandoned.

However, Lincoln’s biographers Nicolay and Hay reveal that, quote “When the President determined on war and with the purpose of making it appear that the South was the aggressor, he took measures.” The measures were to attempt resupply of the fort, knowing that this would inaugurate War.

Is it the one who fires the first shot that causes war or the one that causes the first shot to be fired? If someone breaks into your home, do you have to wait until he harms a member of your family before you can shoot them?

//Ludwig Von Mises Institute, which has been labeled as a neo-Confederate organization//
OK, I’m a socialist and even *I* think that is a bunch of bulls**t. The Ludwig Von Mises Institute is an advocate for Austrian economics and so-forth, I’ve never seen them labeled as neo-Confederate.

Think about it for a minute if you will. Being a racist made no difference in the 2008 presidential race. On candidate said some of this, then he wrote some of this:

“I ceased to advertise my mother’s race at the age of twelve or thirteen, when I began to suspect that by doing so I was ingratiating myself to whites.”

“To avoid being mistaken for a sellout, I chose my friends carefully. The more politically active black students. The foreign students. The Chicanos. The Marxist professors and structural feminists.”

“I learned to slip back and forth between my black and white worlds. One of those tricks I had learned: People were satisfied so long as you were courteous and smiled and made no sudden moves. They were more than satisfied; they were relieved — such a pleasant surprise to find a well-mannered young black man who didn’t seem angry all the time.”

“I can no more disown (Jeremiah Wright) than I can disown the black community.”

“The point I was making was not that Grandmother harbors any racial animosity. She doesn’t. But she is a typical white person…”

“That’s just how white folks will do you.”

Imagine for a moment these statements were reversed. Ron would be labeled a racist of the 10th degree. He wouldn’t even need a wife that had only been proud of America one time in her miserable life. He’d be labeled for life. But for some strange reason the worthless POS we had in 2008 was immune to being labeled a racist.

//”Slavery was on its way out?” What, was it a fad? What are you talking about? //

Actually, it WAS more or less a fad. It was popular for a few centuries, but industrialization all but wiped it off the face of the earth. There was an exception the American south, because their economy was still largely agrarian, but this was clearly not sustainable. Backwards even by North Korean standards, the Confederate states had a highly inefficient economy, tied to a handful of crops, which was the ONLY reason they held slaves, and which was destined for failure. There are many ways that things could have played differently:

1. The south transitions to an industrial economy, where having masses of illiterate slaves simply would not work very well
2. The south might have collapsed, and accepted aid from the North on condition of giving up slavery

etc.

Keep drinking up that Ron Paul Koo-Aide. Do you know how many cocaine and heroin overdoses there are in this country every year ? Do you know how that number will skyrocket if drugs were made freely available as is Paul’s plan? Do you know how racist YOU sound when you and your fellow Ron Paul cult members try to pawn off his “drugs will be legal” plan to black people as though you assume that is all they care about?

Donna everything that you think Obama is, Ron Paul is actually that. Blind ass bat.

Guess you guys are getting lucky and the GOP is handing you the race. You know that Ron Paul would steal votes from Obama and is really the one that would be a threat to him. Obama will shred Newt or Romney in debates. But Paul on the other hand would open a can of whoop ass on Barack. Expose the FAKE that Obama really is…….

This site doesn’t allow links but the SPLC lists them as a hate group. Do your research. Try following some of the links the author has posted.

The only man who proposes that a peaceful solution to the problem of slavery would have been better than the slaughter of over half a million people (including mostly non-slave-owners and thousands of slaves and former slaves) is, of course, to be regarded as a dangerous radical. It’s blasphemy against the religion of state to say that killing people isn’t the best way to get things done!

I think Ron Paul would be opposed to Jim Crow too than, as that regulated segregation. He also is the only political figure that states the justice system is flawed and tilted against black people. How come no one mentions that? I think he’s far less racist than Gingrich, but media biases are against 3rd parties. MOST importantly, he’s the ONLY politician coming out against NDAA, which is by far the worst law passed to Black and White Americans.

Nobody is “entitled” to eat anywhere. If you’re on someone else’s property, the owner should be able to choose who they serve. It’s as simple as that.

Of course, racist businesses will likely atrophy and die while those businesses that cater to everyone will likely thrive and last longer. Racism as a business practice is just as much impractical as it is a disgusting position.

Ron Paul’s position on the Civil Rights Act is much like Barry Goldwater’s – they support most of the act (keep in mind, Barry Goldwater was the first businessman in Arizona to employ both black and white people), he just opposes the part where the federal government would be authorized to crowd control private property. One can vote against the Civil Rights Act not because of race, and the position is completely plausible.

Regarding Ron’s position on the Civil War, I don’t agree with him on it, but it’s an entirely moot and pointless discussion that, much like abortion, is a hot button issue; nothing more.

You sound like a racist trying to keep black people in prison. Also, you hypocrite, you apparently have no problem with white people doing the same crimes without equal punishment. Sounds like a racist system you are supporting.

Also, Ron Paul is not anti-israel. He wants our military base closed in Germany not because he is anti-germany but because it is not our business to subsidize them. Funny how you fight against equal treatment whether it be countries or races of people.

Ron Paul has tried to run for POTUS for 25 years and came in 4th in a four man race tonight in South Carolina. Ron Paul has one foot in the grave and has only got one bill out of over 600 he’s submitted as a congressman passed (and that one was inconsequential ) in 12 terms. He’s a failure as a congressman and he’s a failure as a presidential candidate and he fails to see the writing on the wall: America doesn’t want him. Sorry don’t see the comparison.

I live in New York. The black population is targeted more often than whites and thrown in jail. The justice system is crooked with corporate run prisons and labor camps. Too many young people are being locked away for small crimes. Wait til NDAA comes in full force in about 10-20 years, we’ll see a lot more of America’s youth being tossed in the slammer. Newt Gingrich as president would be tragic.

Donna Stevens from reading your comments throughout this day, all that I can say is your a sad individual.

Ron Paul is part of the KKK? He his a racist? He is against the abolition of Slavery?

I challenge you to prove any one of those to me. He has the racist supporters that he does because he does not agree with federal government taxation and regulation much like alot of the Southern States. He cannot help that some of the people agreeing with him on these matters happen to be racist

???????????? Your putting words into my mouth. And if you look closely I quoted another author about Israel which is an entirely different subject . Guess you have ADD.

Way to post a non-answer. Also, I put no words in your mouth. You said something about effects of drugs and Ron Paul thinking black people can be bought by legalizing drugs. First, use of drugs is rampant. Second, go to any hospital and those in the ICU will be dying of alcohol more than anything else. Third, drug war is lost. Fourth, main drug used is marijuana not heroin. Fifth, laws apparently do not change anything. People do what they want to do. Situation now is just like prohibition in the 1930′s.

Concerning that other author, everybody here is an author. You quoted him, so you must agree with him. If you can’t stand behind what you say, don’t say it.

I said nothing about the disproportional application of drug laws in my comment nor did I bring it up.

Many in the South after the war for generations questioned why they even fought. It was a waste of human life and they knew it, but they clung desperately to an antiquated dying caste system. If they had just freed the slaves the South would not have been destroyed through war and there would not have been as much scapegoating on the freed slaves. Poverty, hunger and war bring out the worst in people and they look to blame others for their suffering. History repeats itself, the War of 1812, the Civil War, the Great Depression, World War II, and now our current era. They all have similar themes wrapped in bitterness and wrath.

In all practicality and, if they were at all civil, the North and the South should have come to an amicable agreement and not entered into war. Remember, the victor writes the history book. NIKE and Abercrombie & Fitch can still turn a profit if they paid fair wages in America instead of outsourcing labor to camps in Cambodia for $0.65 an hour. The profits just would not be as great. The only way this can be stopped is if the US taxed trade at a higher rate, but we refuse to do this in the name of profit, and in the long run, our country will lose itself.

Today, our cultural war is one of divide and concur, and the American people are losing by falling for tricks led by those in control in DC (and Goldman Sachs). The WTO, NAFTA, the War on Terror, and finally the NDAA. The day will come when we will all look back and realize when it’s too late to change anything, that we’ve lost any chance at peace.

The end of the world can’t come soon enough.

This website doesn’t allow links huh??? I see they really like getting down to the truth of things here. LOL

This story just made Current TV! The word is spreading. Soon the GOP will have no choice but to disqualify Ron Paul from the race to prevent further embarrassment.

You don’t want him because you believe all the propaganda you hear about him. Instead of bashing Paul, why don’t you come up with some differences that there are between Barack and George Bush. Because your boy is the same as the one before him. But your right, that NDAA bill is definitely a good thing for all americans…….

There were over 900 slave rebellions in the Caribbean. 900 little wars. It is utter hogwash to say that British abolition did not come after simple, non-violent transition.

Who are you calling boy? Sorry your sheet is showing.

No it doesn’t. You are simply acting on a stereotype of people in the south, and then you make broad generalizations on the entire population of the south.

Obviously you didn’t get the memo from Ron Paul’s campaign asking supporters not to respond to this article or any of the other ones and provide “ammunition for the MSM”.

Hey Donna, see that way down at the bottom? That’s me righteously and thoroughly owning you. I love trolls, you’re so easy to outwit.

Obviously you didn’t get the damage control memo Paul’s campaign put out asking his supporters not to respond to this article either.

yet another wayward Paul supporter unwittingly doing his part to help sink Paul’s campaign.

Why would you place a white only sign on your restaurant anyway, black people’s money isn’t good enough?

Being “far less racist” than someone says nothing. It’s like saying “she’s a little pregnant”.

Why is it that every facebook profile who says Ron Paul isn’t racist belongs to some white guy in Texas? Anyone else notice this trend?

Offensive or not, I’m fairly sure that slaves would have much rather have been bought and freed than have to go through a bloody awful conflict and fight (sometimes on their owner’s behalf) to get the mess over with. Personally speaking, I’d be much more pleased about being free without having to worry about getting body parts blown off and being subject to medical practices that would make Gitmo look like a stay at the Hilton.

for what? for liking an Abolitionist? for saying slavery is wrong. get a clue. stop assuming someone is racist … “he is white he has to be racist” i think you reveal your own racism.

This intellectually dishonest journalist left so much out to paint Ron Paul as a racist, but I’m glad the video was posted. Paul believes the South was on the right side of the issue not because of the slavery issue, but because he believes states were free to join the union and thus are free to leave it. I believe this to be true as well. He very deeply favors states rights and their ability to govern themselves. I agree. He believes bloodshed could have been saved by buying the slaves and then freeing them- an interesting idea (“you can free your slaves and we will compensate you, or you can get out of our union”)- but as he said in his speech- the Civil War wasn’t fought simply over the issue of slavery (though that’s what public schools taught me, it wasn’t until I was in my mid 20′s that I realized it was fought over other issues as well). It would have cost a lot less money too. He was against the Civil Rights Act (if he was around to vote on it) because it infringed on private property rights. I support him on this issue as well. I guess that makes me a racist too. If you listen to what the man has to say, you will learn that he doesn’t see people in groups, he sees everyone as important individuals. He favors liberty and freedom for every individual, not just groups. When you classify people in groups, government will either punish them as a group, or subsidize them as a group- and neither of those things are compatible with Paul’s message. Listen to his message of liberty- his message draws everyone together. It does not divide us.

How exciting! Well it’s good to keep busy on a Saturday night. Keeps your mind off the fact that most black men prefer to spend their time with white women rather than a loud- mouth know-it-all black female whiner like yourself.

IN the 50′s the KKK went ballistic because they were afraid the coloreds were going to go after their women. What a ridiculous notion…

“Mommy mommy Ron Paul doesn’t like Negroes he’s a racist!”

17 trillion in debt and this is the best you have to offer. You all actually believe that given the
same circ**stances if the roles were reversed you would somehow be morally and ethically transcendent to Whitey. BULLS**T. You’d do the same damn thing – just like that racist mass murdering thug Robert Mugabe did in Zimbabwe.

The double standard is alive and well right here in good ol D.C. – some idiot Iwill be free said
blacks are not – are incapable of being racist – I’ll remember that next time my car breaks down in South East D.C.

The powers that be have known for a very very long time that it’s easy as pie to distract American Negroes with a few well-placed offensive remarks – any transgression will do – because they know the majority of blacks will never get past their persecution complex passed down from generation to generation- and thus will never be a cohesive mighty force to be reckoned with. Not with that kind of insecurity. Damn shame. Keep picking the fly s**t out of the pepper. It’s what you excel at.

“Who you callin boy?” LMAO – catfish take the bait every time…

Makes me miss Flip Wilson.

Wow I had no idea the word boy could be considered racist. I thought I called George Bush a boy as well as Obama. My sheet is showing???

B***h go make yourself useful to your community and go suck some dick or something. Your on hear using your mouth for something its not meant for. Your to stupid to discuss politics Donna……

Can you send me a copy of that memo because I didn’t get it either. Oh yeah nevermind this weak as site doesn’t allow links or the truth. HAHAHAHAHAHA

Did anyone actually watch the video? Ron stated how he was against slavery, he was against the violence of the civil war, and how states rights were affected. He made a point that numerous nations had ended slavery peacefully (England for one), so why hadn’t America? Most people in the South did not own slaves and were ambivalent at the time to the subject, it was more about both state pride and states rights as opposed to federal control and Northern pride. Ron made not one racist suggestion, but actually implied racism was evil. This blogger is showing some weak bias against Ron Paul in general.

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOH S**T!!!!!!!! The word boy is in this one to Donna!!!! But this time it was used for Abe Lincoln. OOOOOOOOOOOOOOH S**T!!!!! My sheet is showing!!!! Hahahahahahah YOU DUMB ASS B***H!!!!

FUNNY THAT YOU DIDNT HAVE S**T TO SAY TO THAT DONNA!!!!!! Guess you pick and choose what might be easiest to respond to instead of what might make you look like the friggin dumb ass that you are.

Yeah because they were definitely arguing about Slaves at Fort Sumter………

So Abe didn’t own Slaves huh?? He didn’t use Black People as a way to strengthen the ranks of the Union Army later in the war?? Okay……

You idiot, Ron Paul isn’t pro-slavery… he’s anti-war. The United States is the only country to go to war to abolish slavery.

What about restaurants that have an “English only” sign? The *last* thing I want is the federal government telling this owner what he should be doing in his own restaurant. If another owner wants “Spanish only,” that is also his God-given right and if someone doesn’t like it, they can go to the “English Only” restaurant, or somewhere else.

Many mom-and-pop restaurants only cater to members of certain ethnic groups. Do we really need our federal tax dollars going after them also?

Me personally, I’ll go to the restaurant that provides good food, good service, and a clean restaurant – and they can talk any language they please. If they can’t understand me, or if I can’t tell what I’m being served, then I’ll go somewhere else.

It’s called freedom, and we’ll never get there if we want the government to give us everything we want.

“A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have.”

the thing about this video is that ron paul is simply talking about the technicalities of the war in terms of the americnstitution, not announcing his support for slavery or anything that your title seems to imply.
all of these ‘ron paul is a racist’ slander campaigns share one thing in common – if you actually critically analyze them, it doesn’t take much digging to uncover the fact that they are all as shallow as each other.
i don’t even really support ron paul, but articles like this just waste my time.
i want those four minutes back

the thing about this video is that ron paul is simply talking about the technicalities of the war in terms of the american constitution, not announcing his support for slavery or anything that your title seems to imply.
all of these ‘ron paul is a racist’ slander campaigns share one thing in common – if you actually critically analyze them, it doesn’t take much digging to uncover the fact that they are all as shallow as each other.
i don’t even really support ron paul, but articles like this just waste my time.
i want those four minutes back

That’s not a confederate flag it’s a pre 2001 Georgia flag you uneducated c****

Do you bother todo you own journalism or just copy and paste what others write.

The Civil War was about taxes Lincoln did not care about slaves and the civil war did not end racism either it was a pointless war

Very interesting points and historical facts. However, here are some more:

I agree, that could not be Mississippi’s flag. However, the State Flag of Georgia used to contain the confederate colors – which took up most of the flag. The flag shown in that picture could be the old flag of Georgia. Without the full flag being shown, we really can’t tell.

As far as the economics of slavery, a mechanical cotton-picker was invented in Memphis in 1950. It was designed specifically to replace cotton picking by hand. Had it not been for the Civil War, it is entirely possible that that cotton picker could have been commercially viable 10 to 20 years later.

You have shown many examples of countries eliminating slavery without fighting a war over it.

It is still a valid question as to whether 600,000+ had to die or if there were other viable options.

By the way, racism was by no ways limited to the South. Look up Lincoln’s speeches in the Lincoln-Douglas debates that Newt so much loves to wax poetic upon – and it would make most people blush with embarrassment.

Wow what a revelation ! Ron Paul speaks about American History in front of a Rebel flag placed by the organizers of the event. Your spin is obviously an attempt aimed at stupid people who would believe Ron Paul carries a Confederate flag on his campaign stops ! That’s a good one ! Let’s not forget this is the same flag that many southern states continue to PROUDLY display in courtrooms and other state agencies across the south. As a truck driver who has driven through the states of Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina and Tennessee, I have seen at least a ‘FEW’ Confederate flags DISPLAYED. But your attempt to discredit Dr. Paul for speaking about American history is ridiculous, for goodness sake let’s not discuss THAT ! LOL !!!

I’ve attended 3 seminars that the Mises Institute has sponsored, read the blogs on the site almost daily, watched probably close to 200 hours of content put out by the Mises Institute and read books like Theory of Money and Credit and Man Economy and the State, etc and have never seen anything remotely racist or even really race related for that matter. The Southern Poverty Law Center however appears to be a race baiting organization. Its laughable for me to even consider people like Tom Woods or Bob Murphy as being racists.

One more point on the economics of slavery. I agree that it is morally repulsive, but the fact remains that it existed. If slaves were property, then the slave owner and not the government should have borne the entire cost – including that of securing and retrieving their slaves. If, say a horse or sheep, escaped, was it the government’s job to retrieve it? Then why was there a Fugitive Slave Act, and why did governments return slaves? To say that slavery was economical by itself, ignores that it required government action to sustain it.

Had the slave owners had to bear the full cost, the industrial revolution would have had much more incentive to provide mechanical alternatives.

I agree that slavery needed to be abolished, that isn’t the question. The question is what was the best and most humane way to do this. Losing 600,000+ when the vast majority of other nations did so without war is still very questionable.

In London (where I live) a pub owner kicked out two gay men for “a public display of affection”, the next day (and I’m not kidding you here) around a hundred gay men showed up outside the pub and all of them engaged in public displays of affection. The gay community in Soho now boycott the pub and it’s lost a serious amount of business thanks to the owners ignorance. The power is in the hands of the people, the individuals. People need to evolve beyond race, religion and sexuality, they are just things that hold us back.

Where were you people when the Dukes of Hazard was on television?

That video is from the 90′s given the color of Ron’s hair, and the flag was not changed until 2001. The flag would have been hanging as a backdrop and the blue border with the seal would have been out of frame above Ron’s head. Context is everything.

Yes, the flag was replaced because it was viewed as a racist symbol, but prior to being replaced it was in fact the flag of Georgia as people are pointing out.

Ron Paul would not ask people not to voice their views. I believe that you should be free to say what you want, as should I. We are after all both equally protected under the first amendment.

More on Lysander Spooner:

Although Spooner had advocated the use of violence to abolish slavery, he denounced the Republicans’ use of violence to prevent the Southern states from seceding during the American Civil War. He published several letters and pamphlets about the war, arguing that the Republican objective was not to eradicate slavery, but rather to preserve the Union by force. He blamed the bloodshed on Republican political leaders, such as Secretary of State William H. Seward and Senator Charles Sumner, who often spoke out against slavery but would not attack it on a constitutional basis, and who pursued military policies seen as vengeful and abusive.

Although he denounced the institution of slavery, Spooner recognized the right of the Confederate States of America to secede as the manifestation of government by consent, a constitutional and legal principle fundamental to Spooner’s philosophy; the Northern states, in contrast, were trying to deny the Southerners that right through military force. He “vociferously opposed the Civil War, arguing that it violated the right of the southern states to secede from a Union that no longer represented them.” He believed they were attempting to restore the Southern states to the Union, against the wishes of Southerners. He argued that the right of the states to secede derives from the natural right of slaves to be free. This argument was unpopular in the North and in the South after the War began, as it conflicted with the official position of both governments.

As a means to end slavery without bloodshed, Spooner offered compensated emancipation, a method tested and proven in those nations that had orchestrated the peaceful abolition of slavery.

Ron Paul is anti-war, being a medical doctor whose mission is to save lives, and being a flight surgeon during the Vietnam War, he was exposed to the horrors of war. Thus he has admiration for a figure like Spooner who argued against war in his day, and offered solutions that would not have cost the life of 3 of every 100 Americans to implement.

This reply is to Devilishangelrjp

Private property is not de facto public property. It is private property. Restaurants are not de facto public property, as they have the right to decide when and how people enter their place of business, and can have anyone forcibly removed and even banned from the property at their request. Only property owned by the public is public property.

Thus in a society that has no property rights, the government is justified in making rules that force all restaurants to do something, because the restaurants aren’t owned by the people who run them, those people are stewards of unowned property.

In our society which has property rights, the government is not justified in making those rules. Thus the sections of the civil rights act that infringe on private property rights are unjustified intrusion of government into private life.

Think about it this way: a restaurant is a private enterprise that provides a good or service to other private citizens. Just like a roofer is a private individual who provides a good or service to other private citizens. Now would you say the roofer is obligated to take every job that comes his way? No. He is free to engage and contract in a voluntary nature with anyone who voluntarily requests his services, but also free to refuse. The same should be true for the restaurant owner. Why should his business be treated any differently because private individuals go to his property to request service, rather than asking him to come to their property?

Don’t listen to her. I already completely shot her down. She obviously is not concerned about the truth or logic. She seems to be a paid blogger. In addition, she is for putting black men in prision and keeping them their. She also seems to be connected to Israel and is in complete support of anything to keep monies going in that direction and having US control of that area of the world.

You better have proof of what you say especially when your using facebook. Online defamation IS a crime.

I take issue with this statement: there are degrees of racism and I’ve witnessed them all. Someone who hates one of another race so much they’re willing to drive them over with a car just to “F them up” is far more intensely racist than someone who just wishes other races wouldn’t move into their neighborhood but otherwise are content to leave them alone. The one who wants unofficially segregated living areas is far more racist than the one who doesn’t mind others in their neighborhood, or even has friends in other races but still believes that other races are more likely to commit crimes due to their race rather than cultural or socio-economic factors.

I’ve just described 3 different levels of racism, none of which are justified, but it is much easier to condemn the actively hating racists as human beings than it is to condemn ones that have mildly racist views, and may not act on them or even be aware of the fact that they are unjustified views.

SPLC appears to view anyone as racist if they question any aspect of accepted history relating to race. Thus his politically incorrect take on American history makes him a racist in their eyes.

it is fundamentally important to LISTEN to what ron paul is saying here. additionally his record, and what the man stands for in his longstanding current political philosophies.

the very thing you are perpetrating here casey is the very thing whites did to demonize malcom x. in fact what you do here is perhaps more egregious by the simple fact ron paul’s life long intention has been to make you, i and every american FREE – regardless of race, creed or color.

*please* anyone that encounters this sort of thing regarding ron paul, do yourself, and all of us the favor and see – for yourself – what ron paul is all about. YOU and only YOU can determine what really is truth.

‘One of the more maddening things about Paul’s YouTube spiel is his invoking of the New England individualist-anarchist Lysander Spooner, who Ron Paul said despite being an abolitionist, “when it came down to the war, he identified with the South and said ‘the South is on the right side…’” This is an utter distortion of Spooner’s actual position. Let’s see what the official Lysander Spooner website, maintained by Georgetown University legal scholar Randy E. Barnett, has to say. Here’s what. Spooner devoted years to anti-slavery agitation, and sent copies of his book The Unconstitutionality of Slavery to every congressman, convinced that if he could reach the masses, they “would march up to the cannon’s mouth in defense of the principles of my argument…” Nonetheless:

The Civil War, however, never aroused Spooner’s enthusiasm as John Brown’s adventure had. He felt the war was fought on the false issue of union; it should have been fought squarely on the issue of slavery. In 1864, he published an analysis of the [war] in [a] Letter to [Massachusetts Sen.] Charles Sumner. Spooner argued that: “the slaveholders would never had dared, in the face of the world, to attempt to overthrow a government that gave freedom to all, for the sake of establishing in its place one that should make slaves of those who, by the existing constitution, were free.”

…In agreeing that the Constitution protected slavery, and by proposing compromises in 1861 to prevent [secession], Sumner and others only weakened the moral position of the North. Against the Northern politicians, generally, Spooner charged that “upon your heads, more even, if possible, than upon the slaveholders themselves, (who have acted only in accordance with their associations, interests, and avowed principles as slaveholders) rests the blood of this horrible, unnecessary, and therefore guilty, war.”

So Spooner certainly did not take the side of the South, but argued that the North should have been more forthright in its opposition to slavery’

So, you condone separate toilets to take a piss? Sep water faucets at a public park? And Rosa Parks had better get the F–k in the back of that damn bus? You are truly sad individual

Toast to the Confederate flag: “In memory of the price paid to learn that you cannot have freedom for yourself if you would deny it to others.”

It doesn’t matter whether Paul is racist. His POLICIES are not racist. He might dislike you for some stupid reason, but he will LEAVE YOU ALONE.

I watched the video and I agree with Ron Paul. The civil war was not a fight over slavery, it was the struggle of a strong central government vs a decentralized government. I love the fact he mentions that 11 other major countries all did away with slavery without resulting to a war. The nations bought the slaves their freedom.

This article appears to be an attempt to paint Ron Paul as a racist. I think its a pretty failed attempt. Its unfortunate that this is being used as a means to mask out his message. A message that doesn’t single out color or religion. Personal responsibility, accountability and liberty.

Freedom and equality for all! Why is that message being squashed?

Racist all the way around. I find it odd people still defend this old man.

Why would I buy from someone who I don’t like? Who in their right mind wants that entitlement!!

No other country in this Western Hemisphere fought a war to end slavery in their nation and it is idiotic for blacks to continue to think anglos died on behalf of their freedom. Northern whites fougt to bring an end to conditions that limited their financial success and Lincoln himself is quoted to had said he would save the union even if it meant maintaining slavery as it existed. We need less political mental midget intelectuals telling the whole story and not selecting what truth they choose to report.

I don’t believe that the Civil War should have had to be fought. They should never ever have brought free people to this country and sold them for slaves. It was wrong. But One thing I never knew is that the south started the Civil War. I thought it was started when the North fired on Fort Sumtner. Could someone explain.

I bet if they posted the sign “rich people and corporations only” on an eating place door, it would be honored. They would throw us hoi ploi out in a New York Second.

It’s funny how you totally ignored the “truth or logic” part. Are you more interested in context, or the appearance? What a s**tty paid blogger. RP’s truth will overshadow all the lies spewed by the media, just like the newsletter.

Fort Sumtner was partially built, and a major in the US army led two companies to secretly occupy it. The South demanded that they abandon it and they refused. South fired the first shots, and bombarded the fort for almost 2 days. There were no casualties, except 1 Confederate death from a misfire, and 2 Union deaths from an accident during a salute allowed by the Confederate army after the Union troops evacuated the fort. The whole “battle” was largely posturing. There were reports that some of the women of Charleston celebrated the event by watching from their porches.

It wasn’t until 2 years later in 1863 that the Union attempted to take over the fort again after the Confederates sunk a ship during a siege in the harbor. This time the Confederate army did not suffer casualties, but the union forces were repelled with 8 lives lost and over 100 Union soldiers captured.

There was ongoing fighting over the fort from then until the end of the war. The fort was not reclaimed until after the South Surrendered.

Then how come California is always bankrupt? And Texas is a peasant state, lowest education, highest out of wedlock birth rates, lowest salaries, a national disgrace.

The Internet is not a place. You can’t LIVE in the Internet. It’s virtual. Just like the free market.

There has never been, nor will there ever be a free market. It’s like Candyland. Elves. Unicorns.

Deregulation is lawlessness.

Someone who is hungry, and have no other choice. Is that good enough for you?

It doesn’t matter who gets in the white house because it will remain the same plan with a different face. I don’t care for Obama’s Al Green singing, Air Jordan shucking ass to get the black vote and I don’t give a damn about a Ron Paul. Neither one of them is going to change anything, either one will still be invading other countries with BS excuses to rape the land of it’s resources while the citizens of those countries end up in worst conditions than before which won’t be reported on by U.S. media. You know this and I know this. All of the past presidents and Obama are related except for one. That should be enough to let you know that you don’t really have a choice in this so-called democracy.

It doesn’t matter who gets in the white house because it will remain the same plan with a different face. I don’t care for Obama’s Al Green singing, Air Jordan shucking ass to get the black vote and I don’t give a damn about a Ron Paul. Neither one of them is going to change anything, either one will still be invading other countries with BS excuses to rape the land of it’s resources while the citizens of those countries end up in worst conditions than before which won’t be reported on by U.S. media. You know this and I know this. All of the past presidents and Obama are related except for one. That should be enough to let you know that you don’t really have a choice in this so-called democracy.

Throwing people out of your restaurant because of their skin color in no way compares to throwing people out because of their participation in a terror group. Horrific fail.

what revisionist history are you trying to pull off here? Whites Only signs dotted the landscape pre-civil rights and those establishments didn’t suffer. Hence, the civil rights era. Jackie Robinson couldn’t eat at the same restaurants as the rest of the Dodgers. Those restaurants stayed in business. You’re struggling to establish delusion as truth, buddy. Not gonna happen.

The cause of slavery won. The Feds enslaved the States.

“In the video he claims that the North should have paid to buy slaves from southern slave owners to avoid the war, rather than the South renouncing slavery”

No thats not what he said! Not “rather than the South renouncing slavery”! He said rather than undergoing through a pointless war with millions of deaths!

From “A New Economic View of American History” by Jeremy Atack and Peter Passell.

“Goldin and Lewis’s final aggregate estimate of the cost of the war, $6.6 billion, amounts to $206 for every American in 1861–almost twice the average annual per capita consumption before the war. This same amount invested in productive resources at a safe 6 percent annual return could have provided each of the thirty-two million then-living Americans with an annual bonus of about 10 percent of 1860 consumption expenditures forever.

The amount of $6.6 billion would have been enough to buy the freedom of all the slaves (at 1860 market value), to give each slave family a forty-acre farm and a mule, and still have left $3.5 billion for reparations payments to the ex-slaves in lieu of one hundred years of back wages. The South’s losses alone ($3.3 billion) would have been sufficient to cover compensated emancipation, land and even the mules. Unfortunately no one was sufficiently prescient in 1860 to understand how expensive the war would really be.”

“Paul is a neoconfederate.”

WRONG.

“Ludwig Von Mises Institute, which has been labeled as a neo-Confederate organization.”

About as credible as me labeling Casey Gane-McCalla the child molester, as a rapist child molester.

You just puked out about as much vile slander, as someone should be able to without being sued into living under a bridge.

You are a joke. A vile racebaiting Joke.

I think you’re looking for a fight about racism. I don’t care. Go to Yahoo! News and you can find a lot of people who will do that, there’s plenty of people there who will be glad to go back and forth, I’m more interested in spreading my concerns with others about the dangers of the NDAA and Newt Gingrich’s plan to “ease child labor laws”. The NDAA is terribly dangerous and the “easing of the value of the US dollar and the easing of child labor laws and trade restrictions” paints a very frightening image of the years to come.

To regulate means to control the flow of. You are assuming deregulation means no laws, and the flow will be wide open. This is false, you can also turn the flow OFF.

That is where property rights comes in. On pollution, I would be more strict than your regulations because I would make it ALL ILLEGAL. Nobody has the right to pollute your environment or your property(property rights means individual rights, includes you).

They would have to keep their pollution under control and find economic ways to deal with it, or constantly pay restitution to the people they’ve harmed(money goes directly to the people, not a government agency).

This is why people like Ron Paul are the only ones not backed by corporations and the corporate media. He wants to restore the rights of the people. But instead, it’s always presented as if getting rid of regulations means no laws, which is false.

As i am a born southerner. I have a lot of pride in what my great grand fathers tried to stand up for. The confederacy was not about racism until president Lincoln used the race card to gain support from the northern abolitionists. They needed troops to keep the southern states from seceding from the union, which would have crippled the Norths financial monopoly. The south was the first to stand up for their Constitutional rights. States should be the ones legislating and governing it’s citizens not the fed gov. the premises is simple genius of the founding fathers… If you don’t like the laws of your state simply move to another state that is more to your liking. while still retaining all USA citizen rights… It was genius, in that the founding fathers knew that with freemen there would be differences. but those differences must be allowed for and embraced if this free society should grow. the fed gov. now a days is trying to force everyone into the same mold of ethics and morality, as well as social dependence on the big government. WE are all slaves to the big corporations and banks that hold us by chains of debt and dependence.

Regulation on the other hand is simply a private auction held for the benefit of big industries and corporations to buy the laws they want, to monopolize their industries and reduce competition, or to remove liability from their industry because as long as they can say they were “within regulation” they are in the clear.

This made possible by lobbyists who pay off the politicians in order to enact the bureaucracy complete with the loopholes they want.

Then the politicians, basically professional liars without any sense of integrity, spin it to the people as being for their benefit, and for the good. Or they instead focus on BS issues like gay marriage and just vote on them without telling anyone.

Meanwhile the media is corporately controlled by the same entities, and otherwise relying on the advertising is more focused on the latest scandal to notice, all the while operating under the notion it’s what people want to see because they get a viewership increase of 3%.

In the meantime, those who actually oppose such things are pushed away as kooky and fringe, and living in a fantasy land, or racist because of out of context clips and misrepresentations and outright manipulations. Anything to keep the game going.

And as if a spit in the face, the very things warned of will happen if the system itself changes is exactly what we have, and the more regulations and programs we get, the worse off we are where they are involved. And they believe they need more of what caused it, but they supposedly aren’t in a fantasy land.

And your precious regulations enable it the entire thing because it’s where the power to force the people into the bidding of the corporations comes from. Because all they are really controlling is who is allowed to do what, without any philosophical reason behind what they do.

No thanks from me. I’ll just take the basic laws of liability. Works for me and my neighbors.

Simplified Quadratic Discriminant Function

and that’s why he came in last and will continue to come in last until finally he drops out or as feeble as he looks dies on the campaign trail.

I’m so glad the MSM has started quoting Paulbot comments. Paulbots are Ron Paul’s worst enemy since nothing turns off undecided voters like racist comments from a candidates supporters. As we saw last night with Paul coming in LAST place , Paulbots are doing a fine job of torpedoing there own candidate.

Everyone knows what Ron Paul is……It is a waste of time analyzing him. He will never win the nomination or presidency. If there is any food for thought, it is the realization that other Republican candidates think and see black people as Ron paul does, they are just more secretive about it.

I notice they’re mostly male. Men writing obsessively about how great some another man is? Isn’t that a bit gay? ;-) Not that I have anything against gays but I get the feeling these guys are more of the closet variety.

FVCK RON PAUL!!!!

That is all.

So does this mean I can go find any group of Obama supporters I want, and apply anything from that group I want onto you?

The states seceded before Lincoln was in office.

In that time slaves were considered 3/5 human and could be owned. You know, the reason for the 13th amendment which came after the war?

And there are people out there that still say he’s not racist. True Republicans. Some just hide their true feelings. And then costume the reasonings behind their votes against minority issues to hide their racist undertone. They all want to satisfy their rich, racist campaign donors.

Sounds like th bias against Ron Paul is with Newsone.

Now it might, because society has changed and no longer finds that sort of open bigotry tolerable. But nothing would have happened back when Jim Crow laws were first outlawed. Sometimes public opinion is no better than the Law of the Mob.

Donna, what you are in fact celebrating, then, should Ron Paul not attain the presidency, is far more wide-spread death and suffering caused by us, and death and suffering of our own troops. In fact many, including me, fear world – up to and including nuclear – war. Ron Paul is the only challenge to this disastrous course of history. Did you know that Ron Paul has pledged, if he were elected president, to end the destructive War on Drugs and pardon all non-violent drug offenders currently in federal prison? Why? Because blacks commit 14% of drug crimes yet comprise over 60% of those incarcerated. Or that he used to believe in the death penalty until he realized that the justice system was, in fact, biased toward the poor, blacks and ethnic minorities? So he changed his mind. Ron Paul is no racist. Dr. Paul practiced medicine for thirty years. It is clear that he holds every single life to be valued.

To many typos to take seriously.

They are “TERRORISTS”. Why are Muslim terrorists treated like an enemy of the US, but klan members, skinheads, and white terrorists are supposed to be treated like respectable members of society?

Certainly, people would go to your restaurant. People DID go to those restaurants when it was legal for a business to discriminate.

Did you even watch the video? Ron Paul is clearly not a racist. He spends time describing his support of and respect for abolitionists. He then points out that his opposition to the Civil War was the *war* part of it, not the abolition part. He is a physician, whose life’s work is to protect life. He opposes war. He clearly explains that the vast majority of countries that had slavery ended the slavery by peaceful means. The American Civil War, by contrast, took the lives of over 600,000 men and boys.

Ron Paul is the only candidate in either party who aggressively campaigns against the War on Drugs, which should be called the “War on Blacks”, since it disproportionately targets blacks. Ron Paul is the only candidate in either party who aggressively campaigns against America’s wars against brown-skinned third world peoples. If he were the racist you claim, he’d be silently cheering the War on Drugs, and the wars against Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.

As a man of color, having been spat on and called “n****r” too many times to count, I will cast my vote for Ron Paul (or write his name in if I have to), as the only champion of liberty and good will among all.

No, I’m sorry Casey, but you’re a simple minded fool. Ron Paul is not siding with racists just because he voted against the Civil Rights Act. Like Bullet Gibson stated, we as human beings all have the same rights. There shouldn’t be any special treatment given. He said the South was right because he believes in states governing themselves, therefore they are entitled to their own set of laws. THAT is what he was speaking about. He wasn’t condoning slavery. Get that through your thick skull.

It took the 101st Air Borne to open up public schools in Little Rock. The drinking fountains were segregated even. So, I was just wondering, since some of us have thick skulls (perhaps yours in too thin and the electricity of your brain waves are spilling out ? ) re where all this “states rights” stuff enters in the fray “…entitled to their own set of laws…” ?

Did anyone even watch and listen to the video? It’s essentially an anti-war speech. It has nothing to do with supporting racism, slavery or any of the other horrible Jim Crow institutions discussed in the comments.

Oh Lord, even if he is saying “the south was right”, he’s not saying that slavery was right! Think about it from another perspective. Why should a nation go to war to force a seceding portion to remain in that union? I’m not making apologies for the south, but I certainly don’t just read the history from the perspective of the victors (as it’s written in our textbooks) and believe that’s the end of the story! Abraham Lincoln set many, many terrible precedents during the Civil War. To this day, people in the northern and southern states have somewhat different cultures and values- what if (just maybe) we all would have been better off if the union had been broken? Don’t misunderstand me- slavery was an abomination, but it would have ended regardless. That union was preserved, but now, the US government is a aggressive global empire! Wouldn’t it be better if we were freer, and wealthier, but not the great superpower? Who cares about military power? We should be able to defend ourselves, not be a world police force. Your characterization of Ron Paul’s positions are truly dubious, at best. It requires you (like so much of the media) to create your own narrative for personal/ political gain.

I’ll tell you one thing: if you are writing such a piece to protect Barack Obama- he doesn’t deserve your defense!

It doesn’t matter if he was singing Lady Gaga. A picture is worth a thousand words. The person who uploaded this believed it could help Paul win South Carolina where he came in last. Now Paul is trying to save face and say he’s in it for the delegates not the nomination. Face it. It’s over for Ron Paul. The original video and this re-up have gone viral and was even shown on tv. And now that Rand Paul refused to be treated like an average American at the airport Paul supporters are dropping the Paul Dynasty faster than Dr. Dre drops dope beats.

Thanks Woodard, I was just about to give up after reading comment after comment, after comment and not finding anyone with the clarity of thought and fair minded rational that you clearly possess. As I listened to Dr. Paul speak in this small video excerpt, he sounded like the same Ron Paul he always sounds like. People are getting so caught up in the tabooness of the topic that they are failing to see the consistent stance that Ron Paul is expressing his opinion from. Don’t get me wrong, it’s not like many of the arguments made here are not valid…because quite frankly they are. Many white supremacists will gravitate to what Paul is saying but not because Paul himself is racist, but because the supremacists are limited in their scope of the broad principles and their implications that Paul is standing on. Let me shed some light on it by approaching this hot topic in a slightly different way. First off, I believe under the right conditions human beings WILL spiritually evolve; that is to say they will progress toward a more utopian society in which we are more concerned with our collective HUMANITY rather than obsessed with our individualism, now that might sound a bit “anti-Paul” at FIRST GLANCE, but I believe it could represent the early part of a journey toward uniting the people of all races, ethnicities,..Etc. toward a better existence for humanity. It’s almost like you have to take some steps backward in order to progress forward. I am black, I tend to be very much into leaders like Marcus Garvey, Paul Cuffe, Malcolm X, Martin Delaney, Booker T. Washington, Elijah Muhammad, The B.P.L.P., CORE, Stokely Carmichael and SNCC.These people and/or the organizations were obviously about about self-help, upliftment of black people i.e., those descendents of the transatlantic slave trade who suffered tremendously through psychological, spiritual, emotional, mental, cultural abuses not to mention physical. If one actually thinks that a group of people who went through so much hardship can bounce right back and participate in the “American Dream” experience without profound scarring on the collective mind then all I can say is that person is ludicrously naive! The psychological economical, cultural, emotional assault on the blacks of the slave trade (not just in the USA but all participating countries in South& Central America and the Caribbean)decimated a people who have through MOST of the history of the USA have been in SURVIVAL MODE…not living mode…but survival mode. To think that this group of people can act like any other immigrant group with such a profoundly contrasting past is not realistic. Yet, they survive inspite of it and in so doing represent virtually the ONLY group of people who can irrefutably & proudly say that the wealth of this super power nation, USA, was in great part built upon the backs of these African slaves And it is through their uncompensated blood, sweat and tears that they are as much FIRST CLASS citizens than any other group (not negating others contributions) So why would an individual like me write these words and be a strong advocate of Dr. Ron Paul….and NOT Obama…Hmmmm…Now let’s see now…should I go on for another 100o paragraphs or ask those who read this to dig a little deeper into the COMMON ground of a Ron Paul and someone such as myself. It really isn’t that difficult to understand when you REALLY understand the HISTORY of the USA…its complete history. As well as the history of African -Americans PRE-Transatlantic Slave trading Know your history people…and you won’t get much accurate representation of it if you depend on the government controlled educational system. Don’t let the confederate flag in the background throw you off…and don’t let white supremacist who might support Ron Paul…LISTEN CAREFULLY TO THE MAN…AND UNDERSTAND HOW HE IS THE ONLY CANDIDATE OUT THERE THAT IS MOST LIKELY TO HELP CREATE AN ENVIORNMENT THAT WILL HELP RELEASE THE POTENTIAL LOCKED DEEP AWAY INTO OUR SUBCONSCIOUS MIND. LEARN HOW WHEN WE WERE FORCED TO SURVIVE ON OUR OWN WITH LITTLE TO NO SUPPORT FROM THE GOVERNMENT. What happened to all black independent, self-sufficient towns like Bailey,Bookertee,Ferguson,Liberty,Wellston Colony…etc…
Ok,..ok…Obama became the first…an undeniable achievement given the history of this nation….but let’s do more than symbolism folk…symbolism won’t un lock the shackles that are still bind so many of us today. It’s time to release the sleeping giants….that would be you. ;-)

VOTE or support RON PAUL 2012!!!

if it really worked both way perhaps he’d have some sort of point. but for years blacks couldnt eat at white establishments or even use the restrooms. BUT blacks would get jailed, beaten or murdered if they dared to be so bold as to not deny a white man entry into their place of business… separate but equal never was- and while europe and the rest of the world made social progress the usa still has racists who long to take this country thru a time portal back to 1845.

More pandering from the Ron Paul campaign.

The quote is from David Duke. Stormfront owner Don Black told the NY Times in the Dec. 25th edition that he has “several dozen members” currently working on Ron Paul’s campaign. Look it up!

Here’s what Howard has to say:
“As Director of Communications for the Campaign For Liberty, it is my responsibility to formulate a general public affairs strategy, widely promote its message, and relay that message to media.”
Didn’t see anything where he says he’s volunteering his time but he does say it’s his “responsibility” (read : “his job”). So I stand by my statement.

First, the firing on Fort Sumter was to send a message for the Federal government to leave the states. They refused, but it resulted in no deaths and was the result of the federal government’s occupation. However, the states existed first and became part of a union only so long as the union served their interests. When it went against those interests the states had a right to leave. The invasion by the North used military might to resolve a political issue in which the South had acted in full accordance with their states’ rights. The states existed before the union and were superior to any compact with a central government. Trotsky loved Lincoln and spoke glowingly about him because he was willing to slaughter as many as was needed to install his centralized government. Lincoln would have allowed 20 times as many to have been killed to establish a totalitarian central government. He was an absolute lunatic and war criminal of the most vile sort. But, it is the worshippers of central government who deify him. Nothing is ever mentioned in history of his mass executions of civilians, killing those who refused to fight for the North, mass rapes and wholesale destruction of homes, farms, towns and cities to cause the deaths of women and children. Lincoln jailed reporter and news editors and had his partisans burn newspaper businesses to the ground for not supporting Lincoln. He threatened to jail Supreme Court justices for ruling his actions unconstitutional and ran off or surrounded entire legislatures to prevent a political as opposed to military resolution of a political problem. The fact is that Lincoln waged war on the American people and the U.S. Constitution and enforced the Dred Scott decision that was a FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ruling. If the South had any sense they would pursue their rights. If there was a war regarding this issue, I would be fighting on the side of the South.

So now ur dumb ass logic got u comparing all blacks to skin heads (by the way, not all skinhead are racist, but for the sake of ur stupid logic, I assume u r speaking or racist skinheads). How did you arrive there? The Restaurant owner (White or Black) has the right to throw out anyone who causes disruption in his restaurant (not disruption by virtue of being black). If he does so based on race, the his racist ass (White or Black) should be treated as a violator of the law and dealt with accordingly.

So now ur dumb ass logic got u comparing all blacks to skin heads (by the way, not all skinhead are racist, but for the sake of ur stupid logic, I assume u r speaking or racist skinheads). How did you arrive there? The Restaurant owner (White or Black) has the right to throw out anyone who causes disruption in his restaurant (not disruption by virtue of being black). If he does so based on race, the his racist ass (White or Black) should be treated as a violator of the law and dealt with accordingly.

This idiot is so unconscionably stupid. You know what? If the Southerners love this guy and people like him…GO. PLEASE. We certainly have had enough of their obstructionist “gimme dat ol’ time religion” etc BULLS**T since 1861. Seriously; Go. Now.

“It is clear that the states, according to our founders and our constitution, have the right to withdraw from the union. It was one of the features of our government that the founders wished to emphasize most. ” (c) J.A. Woodard.

Where in the constitution does it provide for states to withdraw from the Union? It’s not there. Per our constitution, it is not a right that States have. Want to revise your statement?

He’s right. The Civil War was about states’ rights. As for the Civil Rights Act (CRA), I was upset when I first heard he opposed it. But then I went to find out why he took that position. While he is pleased with the progress we’ve made on civil rights, he correctly points out that it was IN SPITE of the CRA. The CRA gave us affirmative action and quotas, which resulted in people being hired, promoted, graduated, etc. based on skin color alone rather than performance, achievement or merit. This fostered a lot of resentment between races. Ron Paul’s consistent position is that the Constitution protects INDIVIDUAL rights and as soon as you start treating people as groups – and either punishing or rewarding one group, you do the opposite to people outside that group.

So… if there was possible ways to avoid the bloodiest war for Americans, you don’t want to hear it. Just war is the answer 100% of the time. Must be nice for the OP to sit in 2012 and look at history with such narrow vision. I mean lets just leave out that it was the British Empire that started importing slaves and pretty much made it the backbone of the Southern economy. Let us just also forget to ask what happens when a collection of “free” states are no longer a union by choice but now a union of force. Obviously slavery was wrong and eventually it would have collapsed regardless but to write any person who suggests alternatives to what ended up being the bloodiest war in our history shows what a narrow mind some people have.

Oh and your history is flawed to say “the South started it because they attacked us”. Once the South broke from the Union they became a sovereign entity and demanded Federal troops leave a fortification in South Carolina (which was no longer part of the Union). Federal troops refused to leave so that would be considered an act of occupation. One could argue the first act of aggression was the North. The North says it was the South, the South say it is the North. Shades of grey.

The fact that the only solution we found at the time was the mass slaughter of each other and that cooler heads didn’t prevail is sad. Think of how many generations we lost, artist, inventors, statesman, etc.. AND the children they would have had.

By the way I’m from the North.

Wow, what a hateful b***h.

So because he is old, and because he isn’t the front runner, he should be forgotten about?
Regardless of his consistent record of supporting the American people and consulting the constitution?

What would we apologize for as RP supporters? You should apologize for being so ignorant and spouting off as if you had a clue. Maybe one day you’ll do some research and start putting your misguided enthusiasm to good use.

Obama also has racist supporters. Romney has racist supporters. Newt has racist supporters. Jesus Christ has racist supporters.

Having negative supporters does not make his positions any less true. Nor does his perceived placement in the various presidential polls.

Wrong. It worked for many other countries, including Britain. RP is not condoning slavery, he is stating that the slaves could have been freed by other means instead of through the deaths of hundreds of thousands. More violence to stop violence… yeah, doesn’t make much sense does it?

Ron Paul supports your freedoms more than any other candidate, including Obama. Please do more research on their records and things that they have personally said. RP has been promoting individual liberty for a very long time. Voting records, speeches, books, newspaper articles, campaign platforms, etc.

All this knowledge is out there, but you allow other people to pick and choose random misquotes and dis-information and skew your perception of the only candidate running who gives a s**t about our personal freedoms and the future of ALL Americans.

Sean X, I can help clear up the misconceptions you have about Dr. Paul. You seem interested and passionate about politics and personal liberty, just a bit misguided.

>The only person running in the presidential race (including Obama)
Are you mentally challenged? The presidential race hasn’t started. These are just the GOP primaries to select a candidate to represent the Republican party.

>”Ron Paul isn’t racist, he consistently decries the fundamental racism inherent in the judicial amd political systems. He is the only presidential candidate who can even admit blacks are prosecuted disproportionally when compared to crime statistics”

Ron Paul is NOT a presidential candidate. He’s a GOP hopeful. Big difference .

>”People across the country from all walks of life are being united ”

would you like me to photoshop some Black, Hispanic and Asian faces into photos of Ron Paul supporters for you?

No Carlton, YOU did.

Watch the video, buy freedom, like other countries did, to avoid so many deaths.
Casey Gane-McCalla comments are deliberate deception (wishful thinking) and/or stupidity.

Paul is right Lincoln didnt take a bullet for nothing!!! hahahahaha

great speech. this has nothing to do with racism you ignorant assumptuous dicks

and what business is the govts whether your restaurant fails? thats just unnecessary interference

You must not have read your bible lately. God is a pretty HATEFUL mf. Allllllll over that bible God is killing people, having people killed (INCLUDING children and infants), and allows (sexual) slavery. Don’t make me start pulling out direct quotes from the bible b/c I will and it’s EAAAAAASY as hell to do it lol

How do you know that?

I agree with Ron Paul. The South was right to leave.

When they fired on Fort Sumter, America would be a far better country,
if President Lincoln hadn’t fired back.

As the South Carolina debates demonstrated, America is still two countries
— one of them sucks.

Has anyone even thought to themselves how old this video is, I mean look at Ron he looks YEARS younger anyone who has had any American history classes in college would know that the Real issue about the war was not slavery, it was PROPERTY… which fyi we will never truly poses because technically politicians can take that away too when they feel like it. OO and by the way the person who wrote this summary should learn how to write facts and not twist words to say what they want. The ONLY reason there is EVER a Race issue is because people like this author MAKES it an ISSUE.

Max RonPaul Rich wrote:
“great speech. this has nothing to do with racism you ignorant assumptuous dicks”

That’s a perfect example of how Libertarians never get it.

Their principles are a mask for racism, and they allow it on principle.

There are two sorts of Libertarians fools and wolves. The fools are too stupid to know that the enemy is the bigotry that has disgraced America from its inception — the bigotry written in its Constitution; the wolves know how to make use of stupidity — they convince White people that racism works for them, when it weakens them by dividing them from natural allies, while it strengthens predators.

Why do you think the KKK burned Black schools? The canard still works.

As I wrote in a poem decades ago:
They have a word for “victim” in the jungle. It’s “lunch.”

Funny how Southern bigots can still twist the word “slavery,” with a straight face.

Libertarians cannot be racist by principle of their own convictions. They believe in liberty for all.

Did the writer of this article watch the same video as me????? I heard Dr. Paul talk about how slavery came to be abolished, what the Civil war was for, and how other civilized countries defeated slavery without war. If this man is racist then I want to know….. but all I keep seeing is blatant lies and smokescreen. Where’s the beef?? This article is NOTHING MORE THAN false propaganda. BOOO!

What did I say: “fools & wolves.” I was one of the fools. I grew up on a cattle ranch. I admire the the principles of self reliance but it is a moral responsibility, in a political organization, to honestly appraise the uses that ones principles are being put.

The Libertarian Party, in fact the entire Conservative movement, is used as a front for predatory capitalists (the opposite of free enterprise — read Adam Smith), for Christian reconstructions and for the comfort of Southern bigots, to keep the Old South voting block in the GOP.

Principles meet practice. High sounding principles about liberty do not match the smell test when one examines Republican policy. Of course, the LP has no policies because they have virtually no one in office and are thus a debating society , which offers a quiasi-principled front for a degenerate Republican Party, that is entirely corrupt.

I’ve been offering to photoshop Black, Hispanic and Asian faces into pictures of Ron Paul supporters for years now but have found no takers.

Ron Paul is not a racist people , do you own research and see the truth

So who published those racist newsletters with his signature?

It havent been that long ago folks! f**king sad! The biggest terrorist the country has ever known, very much still alive. I live in a RED state Ga.

There’s a reason why the majority of Ron Paul supporters are between 18-23 year olds. To them the racist newsletters he published are as he says ancient history. But the fact remains he DID publish them. I don’t care if it was 40 years ago it does not make it any less forgivable.

The real issue is that 650,000 people died horrible deaths, and how can you avoid that kind of destruction in the future? Many of these people were immigrants who had nothing to do with the institution of slavery. They were pulled of the boat and conscripted. Slavery was horrible, but putting a double evil upon the issue by disregarding peaceful alternatives is not acceptable either. We need to constantly look back upon instances like the Civil War and debate the tactics so that we don’t repeat the flaws in the future.
Paul says the CRA of 1964 is a done deal. Why don’t we worry about Americans being indefinately detained without due process, assasination without due process, and the police state forming before our very eyes. All of America’s civil rights are in question now. Are we going to draw hypotheticals about the past or do something now that will help to preserve our civil rights in the future? There is only one candidate fighting for EVERYONE’S civil rights NOW. Consider that.

I’m not a Paul fan, i can’t stand Libertarians, and i a educated black fella: While Ron Paul certainly seems to have an aversion to black [and also of gay] people, this video doesn’t say that at all. In fact this post is rabble-rousing BS through and through.

We Americans and black-Americans aren’t going to get anywhere until we start facing some truths. Not with sugary little comforts like the idea that the civil war had anything to do with Mr. Lincoln’s great mind & heart suddenly realizing the inhumanity and folly of slavery…

He was a great man; it *wasn’t* about slavery…. But it was a turning point, and that truth is good enough for it’s purposes.

Only the truth can be a foundation for real progress. Let’s start by ignoring the faux issues and facing head-on the real ones.

The man wants to gut several gov depts, like Health, Education, and Medicare. He wants to nix many gov. regulations intended to keep our soil, bodies, neighborhoods, and national parks safe from corporate rape and destruction…

WHO CARES WHAT THE FOOL THINKS ABOUT SLAVERY! Focus, people.

(This comment isn’t proofed of stylized. Deal with it)

According to Dr. Paul’s website “Ron Paul has been a strong supporter of the National Right to Work Act in Congress….As President, he will continue to lead the fight … by working to pass a National Right to Work law.”
Right To Work laws weaken unions and force down wages. The only civil rights Ron Paul is fighting for are those of big business.
According to his website he also wants to “End Birthright Citizenship” which is guaranteed by the 14th amendment (and I thought he was a constitutionalist ?)

what a lying ahole…the SOUTH started the war, and in all of their state charters of succession, they specifically labeled slavery as their reason for attacking innocent civilians in the north.

tell you what. Let’s rip you away from your family, chain you up and force you to work at something that will kill you young, and then some of the rest of us can “pursue political solutions” to save maybe your grand kids from this sort of harsh life. How does that sound?

Wow. This is all amazing. I feel like I just time-traveled “backwards”.

It seems to me that everyone here is still missing his main point. He is NOT talking about slavery or equal rights or even racism!

As he states, the Civil War was NOT fought to abolish slavery (other countries accomplished this WITHOUT going to war). It was a battle between those states which wished to have a strong central government(the North) and those which did not(the South).

Of course, this goes right along with his platform on smaller centralized government. Make more sense now?

This coming from “black one, for black America”? ARE YOU KIDDING ME? HAHA. Lets talk about how racist white people are at the same time be racist ourselves. If you don’t think the name of this column is racist then you are guilty of the same that your accusing. What the hell is wrong with America, if you want racism to end stop calling each other the durogatory term that you fear from white people. Are you BRAIN DEAD? opps is that somehow racist to say?? The clar and true fact is that there would an outrage if there was a sight that said “white America for a white America”

Businesses use and need publicly financed infrastructure to operate, as long as they have set themselves up as a public business, not a private non-profit, they have to abide by the laws of the land. It is not just ‘his property’ in the public realm.

I know what the laws are. I’m not arguing legality. I’m arguing principle. It’s a bad precedent when the government tells you what you can or can’t do on your own property. There shouldn’t be a difference if its a business or not. Should the government tell you what to do on your property when you’re having a yard sale?

I know what the laws are. I’m not arguing legality. I’m arguing principle. It’s a bad precedent when the government tells you what you can or can’t do on your own property. There shouldn’t be a difference if its a business or not. Should the government tell you what to do on your property when you’re having a yard sale?

You seem to overlook the fact that you’ll likely find a lot of racist sc**bag clientele going into your “Whites only” restaurant because of that very sign.
Also, I’d say that BECAUSE it has been almost 50 years that have passed since the Civil Rights Act, a Whites Only restaurant would struggle (but not fail, see my first point). These days people would be shocked because we’re not used to it. Had it not passed, Whites Only restaurants would still be commonplace, tolerated and even encouraged.

You should learn how to talk to people and listen to what people are saying. I did not equate blacks to skinheads at all. My point is that everyone who owns property and pays taxes on their property should have the right to do what they want on their property so long as they don’t physically harm anyone else. It doesn’t matter what race they are. Everyone should be afforded the same rights.

If someone wants to be an idiot and refuse service (money) to someone based on race, then let them go out of business.

Look at the rest of the world. The numbers weren’t declining, but history shows that the need for slave-labor was eradicated by the industrial revolution. I,m not defending slavery. It was the most embarrassing part of this country’s history, aside from Indian removal. My point is that of all the ways to go about ending slavery, this was the worst way possible and the war was not even fought over slavery, but over the right of the southern states to secede. Both sides were racist, my friend. It should serve to remind us that we are not far removed from our dark social past, but the ideas of freedom and individual liberty can work as long as we learn to respect one another regardless of race, gender, etc.

the whole article took the video out of context…

If you watch this video and come away thinking Ron Paul is racist or that this has anything to do with race then you are too bought into what the system has told you is truth. Educate yourself…

then that would be your fault for feeling that way… the fact of the matter is, is that you should have that right…

Can you believe it? I mean, can you believe it!

Well, didnt this fellas reply just take the cake? Good to see you all can stfu and bow to logic.

If you watch the debates and come away thinking Ron Paul is going to win the Republican nomination you are too bought into the hype that is Ron Paul’s campaign.

Skyrim belongs to the Nords!

States rights was used to combat the Fugitive Slave Act. Slavery was not national and many white people took up arms in defense of “Fugitive Slaves” to live as Freemen.. slavery is tragic but it was being worked through .. we were such a young nation it never got to be done away with the right way. but i stand by States Rights. the Civil war was awar fought between Eastern Powers. while the Western states were like .. just stick to the constitution and stop kidnapping people.. its illegal. the act of slavery starts with an Illegal act. Kidnapping. so its illegal. States Rights.

Actually I believed the hype of a campaign last time around and thats why I’m voting for Paul this time.

doesn’t sound so crazy to me….it’s a historical analysis that examines other factors….which everyone now recognizes were very real…it’s just too simplistic (and frankly it’s propaganda) to continue to buy the whole, “it was just slavery” thing…..as Paul indicates slavery was already on the wane because of other economic factors. we must not let debate and division divide us along lines like race or status any longer and begin to have a much more sophisticated analysis of how we are all being taken by those at the top….regardless of our skin color.

Everyone has an agenda, Ron Paul uses his cry of “States Rights” to back certain policies.
He voted against Civil Rights
Signed racist news letters
he’s against EVOLUTION
Consistently against Abortion

Saying he’s for these things would of course not get him elected, so instead he tries to erode the federal protections that push the south forward with the battle cry “States Rights.”State’s Rights? um.. BS.
How about human rights and scientific advances.

You must have brought over a bunch of your stormfront cronies to click the like button for you. Must be quite a feat to get them to differentiate the word Like and Reply. Anyhow to your point first of all no skinhead would ever eat in a predominately black restaurant. His or her embedded racism would not allow to to even have a bite from what their warped mentality thinks was cooked and prepared from a inferior race. If you are open to the public than you cannot say I’m discriminating because you look like this or that. If you want to do do that create a private club where you are legally free to discriminate whoever you wish to. The 1964 Civil rights act while not perfect has made this great country much better and I find it despicable that revisionist like yourself try to rose color the past like this law was never needed.

Honestly this is the dumbest article I have ever read in my life!!!! You’re talking about how racist the man is when all he is saying is that the civil war was not predominately fought over the issue of slavery. Which is the truth. You’re saying that RP said that the North should have bought he slaves from the South but fail to recognize this was to FREE them and to avoid the mass killing of war. Whoever wrote this article is an a**

Learn your history the Civil War was not predominantely fought over slavery; it was fought over the unions. So get your facts straight!

Learn your history the Civil War was not predominantely fought over slavery; it was fought over the unions. So get your facts straight!

Why not learn about his policies; you might like him too.

Delusional.

They like the idea of separatism. You know… One Nation Under Denny’s roof ! lmaoo

Restaurants ? How about loans ? Education ? etc. You all think so tiny.More than likely because you are peons and easily misled.

the title should be Ron Paul says North was also wrong. “Slavery was bad and we had to get rid of it, but there were other ways”

This has to be the most ridiculous post……anyone with a brain knows that they author is intentionally misrepresenting Dr. Paul’s words…..they also have their history wrong.

um what was to stop the South from simply buying more slaves?

I guess wanting peaceful resolutions is racist now.

Learn some history, the slave trade was abolished in 1808 and all other countries had ended slavery by that point.

I’m not really a supporter of politics in general. Politicking is all self-interested at some level. But all I heard him talk about (for only the first 90 seconds) was a solution to ending slavery, without a war, by creating a system to buy their freedom. I’d be the type that would down right refuse to speak in front of a confederate flag just b/c of the associations, but I didn’t hear one racist ideology in there. LISTEN AND THINK, he’s talking about an ABOLITIONIST who simply had a different idea of how to end slavery.

If you look at the Civil War strictly from a legal point of view the South was right. There never was and still is no provision for a permanent union in the Constitution. There have been several times in our history that NORTHERN states have threatened to leave the union. Most often, it was the New England states. If you study the history in the years before the Civil War you will see that the North was engaged in many schemes to undermine Southern industry and exports. Not to say that the South was perfect, far from it but the North used its larger population and greater representation in Congress to try to bend the South to its will. Also, the northern states while claiming to want to stop the spread of slavery, were enforcing the fugitive slave laws that would return runaway slaves back to their masters in the South. There was wrong done on both sides, however, as much as I hate to say this, Ron Paul is correct in his statement.

If the slaves’ freedom were bought, over 600,000 people wouldn’t have had to die.

What was to stop the slave owners from buying more slaves?

This coming from a waiter who openly admits he spits in the food of his black customers.

I never said that. You can create your own opinion but not your own facts

I cannot see what is so “racist” about his speech? He made a really good point in my mind. Considering the incredible cost of war (just monetarily speaking), it would have been much cheaper for the north to just pay off the south and essentially “buy-out” slavery.

He says the war was not about slavery, ok, hes partly right, partly not. About 50% of the war was slavery, I believe he is devaluing the part that slavery DID play. However, that in itself does not make his speech incorrect, considering most people are taught that 90% of the war was over slavery and this is absolutely fallacious!

He also made a good point, a number of other states were able to abolish slavery without a war. Was Abe Lincoln just THAT BAD of a diplomat? Maybe some criticism of Lincoln is well deserved.

OK, he’s standing behind a confederate flag. That is part of the scenery of where he is and if you understand the culture of the people he is communicating with, they don’t see the confederate flag the same way as a an African American or a US northern would. Most people in the “deep south” see the confederate flag as a cultural identifier, independent of racism.

I believe the author of this article is not evaluating this situation fairly and rationally. Instead, I believe the author is allowing the emotions and association of an iconic symbol (confed flag) to ensue a flow of emotions that are not related to his real topic of discussion.

As far as him voting against Civil Rights Act Of 1964, this is a complex and controversial topic. I don’t think that, that in itself should qualify someone as “racist”. There is even parts of this bill that I do not agree with! Do you call someone a terrorist because they voted against the “patriotic act”???

Ron Paul is the most honest politician out there, and I do not believe he is racist in the least (the same cannot be said for the other Republican Candidates). Vote Ron Paul!

Nothing good can be forced top-down. You can’t have a communist politburo dictate terms on all others – treat the others as animals that need to be disciplined into letting go of slavery – it doesn’t work that way.
.
The compassionate way of doing things is never Top-Down – it’s never a Central Authoritarian group dictating terms to the masses.
.
It is precisely the communist approach that has lead to the continuation of racial bias in current day America. The people need to understand why treating others based on skin color is not humane – they need to inherently develop the sense of compassion – and that’s how they can improve their lives, their societies & their countries.
.
Yes, this may (nay, rather will definitely) take more time & efforts. But it’s worth it.
.
Feed a hungry man a fish & you fed him for a day. Teach him fishing & you helped him live. Force anti-slavery laws on people – and you forcibly-improved their lives; teach them why skin-color-based discrimination & slaver is wrong – and you’ve truly improved their lives.
.
My skin color is BROWN – and I’m against the forced Top-Down approach of ending racism. It has never worked, it does not work now – and it will NEVER work. You only end up creating a bigger problem for the future generations to live with.
.
MN

Casey, you do not know true history, and you are twisting Ron Paul’s message to suit your own ends. Ron is right – slavery/race was NOT the reason for the Civil War. Anyone who attended public school, will not know that. Public schools are nothing more than communist robot factories. We are all equal, regardless of our skin color. And Ron Paul knows that and lives it better than most other Americans. But being equal does not mean that we get equal things. being equal means that we have equal opportunities. What we MAKE and EARN from what we do with those opportunities, is up to us, and it is different for each person.. None of which has anything to do with skin color. True History: Do you know there were Negroes during the 1800′s that owned White slaves and treated them just as bad? “Slavery” is NOT what you have been indoctrinated to believe. There are MANY historical facts surrounding the “slavery” stories that 99% of public-school taught people have no knowledge of, because “they” don’t want you to know about it. They want to control your perspective and thereby your paradigm, and thereby your reactions. Everyone should be aware of that, and be careful what you swallow when it comes to learning history.

You sound like you belong on one of the White Nationalist websites where they are all hailing the video as proof Paul is one of them.

And you think legally requiring them to serve black customers will make them any less racist? At least by allowing them to be openly racist you can show people their bigotry, boycott them, smear them on the news, and bring down their business and hit them where it hurts. With current laws, they’re still just as racist, but they’re still making money.

Ron Paul demonstrates in his own words why he must not be allowed to hold public office. This racist freak is a sorry excuse for a human being and we must not let such disgusting people be in elected position of power. It is a disgrace to the United States that there are folk that have been duped by this sick racist bastard who is intent on bringing down the United States. Libertarians are freaks that want a twisted view of what they call freedom. It is in truth merely the freedom of the beasts in the jungle. Certainly not the principle of Liberty that these low anarchists fight for.

The South was right! Slavery was obviously a failing institution and was bound to come to an end sooner rather than later, but because of the Brutal Tactics used by the North and the Northern Occupation and Radical Reconstruction, The South created the “Jim Crow Laws” when the Union troops left the South. The Civil War accomplished NOTHING except for the fact that it abolished the word “Slave” and was replaced with “indentured servant” which many “free” blacks lived on the same plantations and worked for the same “masters” now called “Employers”. The South was fighting for the States’ Rights to Ratify or Repeal National Laws and Acts. With Union Victory, this was the starting point for the National Government to become more bureaucratic and centralized.

So Ron Paul isn’t saying the South was right in defending Slavery, he is saying they were right in defending the CONSTITUTION! Read a History Book!

You’re missing the point. The point isn’t that Ron Paul is pro-slavery–he is not–the point is that he is anti-war. Given the choice to end slavery, he would have done it. He models himself after Lysander Spooner, who was an abolitionist, and also against the war.

You’re missing the point, again. The point isn’t that Ron Paul is pro-Jim-Crow–he is not–the point is that he is pro-property rights. Given the choice to repeal Jim-Crow, he would have done it. He has repeatedly said so.

Your the one who need to learn history. Basically the South was fighting to continue life as the knew it by enslaving, raping, and selling (black) humans. How about I put chains on you and your momma and daddy then sell your babies off like cattle? I’m so sick and tired of you people trying to justify slavery. Jim Crow laws made it legal to kill, mame, mutilate, harrass, and hender anyone that was not white. The Civil War put you and your kind on notice that the South was going to walk the line plain and simple. The Constitution in it’s original form was one of the most Racial doc**ents in US History. It is the Constitution that said my people were 1/4 human. So Yes the South was Defending the Racist Constitution which gave them the right to rape, and sell my people. There is and never will be anything heroic about the Civil War when it comes to the South. I can tell you what you can do with a history book.

Twisting his message. I attended Public Schools so your wrong it’s not that we don’t know it. It is that we don’t buy the lie. The Civil War was started because the South wanted to concede from the Union because they did not want to give up life as they knew it. In short Slavery. The had made Slavery how they afforded their big houses and expensive living. Of course they didnt want to give it up. Show me where in history in the 1800 blacks shipped slaves from Europe put them in chains. Raped their woman and sold them like Cattle. You can’t because it never happened. there were black slave owners but they were only permitted to own slaves of African Decent. My dear love your the one who don’t know TRUE history. All you know is the BS you people have made up to make it easy to sleep at night. Yes you should be aware of the BS history you’ve swallowed.

Ron Paul is a sheet wearing Racist like all of the GOP candidates even Herman Cain.

@spam your comments are laughable and truly false.

Not if they are peacefully buying food… A business owner that serves the public should serve the public, not just the people they like. If they wanted to deny services to a group of paying customers they should have made a club…

Yeah… cause the free market totally worked that way in the 60′s…

That was sarcasm.

the problem with these approaches is that what happens when racists say “No we still are going to be racist.”

He talks about how the north should have tried to buy the slaves…
Which the north actually did.

The south still wanted to keep slaves.

Should the north just have said “oh well, we tried. You black people getting whipped, sucks for you. “

the problem with these approaches is that what happens when racists say “No we still are going to be racist.”

He talks about how the north should have tried to buy the slaves…
Which the north actually did.

The south still wanted to keep slaves.

Should the north just have said “oh well, we tried. You black people getting whipped, sucks for you. “

there is more slavery in the world now than it was back before the war…

Hey a*****e – only because millions of brave people fought against arrogant stubborn racists like you and “EmbraceTheTruth” and other Ron Paul zombies .. If it weren’t for the government MANDATING civil rights and equality it would have taken MUCH LONGER by DECADES and DECADES, maybe even longer then that, to achieve liberty for all free men .. Your racist whitebread contemporaries had to be FORCIBLY changed in order to stop behaving like barbarians .. And you pretend like they would have somehow magically all fixed all the problems themselves if they had been left to their own devices? Oh yeah? Just like the private bankers in America magically created this wonderful fair and equal economy that we live in? You and your kind are merely the next stage of propagandized losers from Big Brother.

I HATE YOU

Racism breeds racism, discrimination breeds more discrimination .There are a lot of people out there working very hard to keep this discrimination going. Discrimination of any kind causes resentment and the person that is being discriminated against will vent their frustration by doing the same thing to someone else.

There are a lot of different types of discrimination out there, there is discrimination against every race, age, religion, gender, nationality, political party ,sports team. school, gang ,economic class, military branch, hair color, weight, sexual orientation, taxpayers ,welfare recipients ,drug users ,non drug users and I’m sure that you can think of many more.

Any time a person makes another person feel bad because they’re different in any way or passes a law that singles out a particular group of people, or gives rights, gifts , or special privileges to one group and not another for whatever reason , whether intentional or not, they set off a chain reaction fueled by negative feelings usually resulting in more discrimination.

You can even create reasons not to like someone in your own mind by thinking that a difference between you and someone else, somehow makes you a better person or superior in some way, this superior feeling also has a negative effect that grows into thinking that he or she is less of a person or a bad person.

This can start out as something as silly as a different haircut. Want proof ? Have you ever seen someone with a big spot on their shirt or blouse and thought “what a slob” . You did not think ,“I wish they would fix those jelly doughnuts” or you did not remember just last week after that coffee mishap ,you were the slob.

It’s hard to figure out the human mind but it is easy to see that our minds are one thing we all have in common, and it’s always busy trying to figure out more ways of dividing and labeling people, because it’s hard to hate something if you don’t have a name for it.

The one thing we all have in common is that we are all guilty of continuing this vicious circle. If someone does this to you, your first reaction is to do it right back to them, or you will get some friends together to point this person out and hate them as a group. Of coarse this person has friends too, and pretty soon you have two groups busy hating each other, and when the groups get big enough then there’s war…Although we can not control what comes out of another persons mouth, nor can we control the emotions that it causes, we can control our reaction to it. warning ,hate spreads very fast..

Those lazy blakcs need to pull up there bootstraps and get a job. Thanks alot Barak al HUSEEIN OBUMMER for ruining our country. These loosers are being paid by SOROS and SEIU and Bar’aq al Hussain Obumgo and its not surprising that these loosers are on drugs. We got to get that coon MUSLIM COMMUNIST SOCIALIST Obummer out of office and get someone smarter like Sarah Palin so she can fix things like she fixed alaska (yes she is smarter, Harvard isnt really that good of school anyway and he only got in because he’s black, true story). I’m so sick and tired of this MUSLIM pResident not taking any action and ruining our reputation by cowtowing to these TERRORISTS in PAKISTAN. Maybe if we talk to our congressmen they will find a way to show his REAL BIRTH CERTIFICATE from KENYA (the one he submitted is a FAKE, true story). We need to have this tea party movement grow so that we can go back to the principles of our founding fathers. Allow slavery and segregation in certain states so that we can keep the minorities in line so they don’t cause too much trouble because it worked in the past. TEA PARTY ’12!

If we’d all actually had the same rights as a matter of practice, the 1964 CRA wouldn’t have been necessary.

It was.

A nation which forgets its history has no past…and no future.

America is still fighting the Civil War. In fact, our Democratic Republic has been under attack by a predatory fascist/corporatist/theocratic ideology since it’s inception. This predatory ideology has concealed itself by making it’s home in all of the political parties at one time or another. This conservative/corporatist school of thought has consistently represented corporate power, and sought to withhold rights and destroy justice for average Americans. We have fought them for the right to vote for⁏ white men without property, for women, for minorities, and to elect Senators. We have fought them for civil rights, for workers rights, for consumer protection, and to regulate the market against monopoly and abuse.

”The American fascists are most easily recognized by their deliberate perversion of truth and fact. Their newspapers and propaganda carefully cultivate every fissure of disunity, every crack in the common front against fascism. They use every opportunity to impugn democracy. ”……………………………….

”His method is to poison the channels of public information. With a fascist the problem is never how best to present the truth to the public but how best to use the news to deceive the public into giving the fascist and his group more money or more power.”………………

”The symptoms of fascist thinking are colored by environment and adapted to immediate circ**stances. But always and everywhere they can be identified by their appeal to prejudice and by the desire to play upon the fears and vanities of different groups in order to gain power.”……………..

”They claim to be super-patriots, but they would destroy every liberty guaranteed by the Constitution. They demand free enterprise, but are the spokesmen for monopoly and vested interest. Their final objective toward which all their deceit is directed is to capture political power so that, using the power of the state and the power of the market simultaneously, they may keep the common man in eternal subjection.” ……………………… April 9, 1944, Vice President Henry A. Wallace

You have to understand the deliberate deception of the Civil War. The civil war wasnt fought to end slavery, it was simply a bi-product. Take the legislation for example. The Emancipation Proclamation-It did NOT free a SINGLE SLAVE. It was a measure put in place by the north to prevent any FUTURE slaves from being sold into slavery. So if you were a slave you were still up s**t creek. The issue of slavery didnt start the war and it was not a deciding factor in why the north engaged in it. Take the words of Abraham Lincoln for example: “If I can end the civil war by NOT freeing a single slave I WILL DO THAT. If I can win the war by freeing the slaves, I will do that also.” Equivocally what he was saying is he is concerned about winning the war. Nothing else. and if the issue of slavery doesnt play to his tactical advantage then it is a non-factor.

Ron Paul is for civil liberties (if you are white and male.)

” In the video he claims that the North should have paid to buy slaves from southern slave owners to avoid the war, rather than the South renouncing slavery.”

Along with his other endearing qualities, Dr. Paul is an economic illiterate. First, the idea of holding human beings as property is repulsive, not only to our “modern” sensibility but to decent people at the time, but lets attempt to understand the economic value of the owned human beings:

“But in 1860 American slaves, as a financial asset, were worth approximately three and a half billion dollars–that’s just as property. Three and a half billion dollars was the net worth, roughly, of slaves in 1860. In today’s dollars that would be approximately seventy-five billion dollars. In 1860 slaves as an asset were worth more than all of America’s manufacturing, all of the railroads, all of the productive capacity of the United States put together. Slaves were the single largest, by far, financial asset of property in the entire American economy. The only thing worth more than the slaves in the American economy of the 1850s was the land itself, and no one can really put a dollar value on all of the land of North America.”

from: Dr. David Blight, Class lecture, The History of the Civil War, Yale University…

Who is going to pay slaveholders that kind of money? Answer: No one.

More Libertarian Screw-Loose Economics… jt

What the f**k, Ron Paul? Posing in front of a Confederate flag?

i have been refused service before. on a couple of occasions. shaving my head… maybe, but i think its because i have lots of tattoos, and love loud american made motorcycles. some of the guys i rode with really got pissed, but it was like water on a ducks back to me. besides, im very loyal… if you treat me right as a paying customer; ill stick with ya, through thick and thin, even if the other guys have a better price.
i agree with you bullet. i always felt it was the “american right” of the owner of that particular establishment to refuse me service if he felt the need to. this type of thing was not uncommon for me since i rode on average 500 miles a week. my fav riding was back roads, and small towns, a couple of times folks got down right hostile. a gun was pulled out from behind the counter, and i was told to go on down the road. and thats exactly what i did. he was an old white man, doing it to another white dude… like the line from rocky, when rocky would get into arguments with the loan shark’s driver…..”hey rock…. relax.. some guys just hate for no reason” …. simple but very true. i have travelled all across this great country of states., some on bikes, others on planes, etc. good people find one another. regardless of skin color, nationality, gender, etc.
im not all that young and went through highschool shortly after the schools were de-segregated. fights on a regular basis was the order of the day. it was pretty much non stop till i was a junior and senior then it cooled down some. mostly black school. but ill tell you something. inspite of the fights growing up, i had black buddies that would have stood with me to the gates of hell.
anyways, through it all ups and downs, did whatever i could to make a living ended up taking care of old folks, im not that young, so folks just older than me. and i am not kidding about what im going to say. i have had many elderly blackmen tell me, the well meaning white liberals destroyed the black community. they took away our black schools, our black teachers, that our parents, and aunties had, our hospitals, our culture and way of life.
and yes, many did tell me some horror stories, about the run ins they would have with one another, but it was fists and once in a while someone from either side had a knife or a another object, but overall there was an understanding. and during the summers white guys went on to their turf and they would play ball, alot of people liked fishing and theyd end up doing that together sometimes. nothing planned, it just happend that way. when these elderly men would talk to me, id just listen, because i was truly facinated with many of their stories. one of my favorite guys comes in when he gets real sick, we get him well turn him loose and he’s good for another 5 or 6 months before he comes back in. no body likes him because he’s rough, and can get verbally abusive. but for somereason he likes me, and i like working with him too, but he will lay into me also, ill just ignore it do what i got to do and then leave him be. ill never forget what he told me one day. he said hassan… “i love the south, i love my southern culture and southern people” then he clarified himself. “when i say southern people, im including the white folks” …. again he said although separate, there was a mutual respect and understandings.. and told me,
you know something ? ” i was never called a N***** until i moved to new york. i guess the point of my long ass story, is the federal govt, state government, city, etc….. can fix things that need to be worked out on their own. besides, our system is broke, and like it or not….. us good folks whoever and wherever they may be may have to find ourselves and eachother, and lookout for one another without some beaurocrat who aint from around our towns, and neighborhoods telling us what to do, and how to do it. sorry about the novel. just wanted to share. so good night my goodhearted people, no matter where ever or who ever you may be.

i meant to say the fed govt CANT fix

I commended you USSConstition, you have been arguing your points and staying level headed, while keeping a cool and calm demeanor, despite the fact that you have to keep repeating your self over and over and over and over…etc, all because most of the people who are saying you’re wrong and the others who keep bring up the same ignorant talking points, are not even taking the time to read the thread, or fact check what your saying. to those people, how am I going to believe you have read a history book, if you don’t even take the time to read the threads before posting your questions or statements, most of you who say he is a racist have added nothing new to the conversation you just spouting talking points that have no merit and that have been already been proven false. I haven’t read the whole thread myself yet(I’m about 9 hours deep and its 5am and its time for some sleep), but intend too, that’s so i don’t end up sounding redundant. this is my opinion and observation. also to the person who said that Ron Paul supporters are trying to hide this, you should know that i posted this article to my facebook and challenged people to debate me on it. as a Ron Paul supporter, i welcome open oppositions and respect people’s rights to there own opinions, but that doesn’t mean i have to agree with them. i voted for Obama, and it sucks to admit when you’re wrong, not saying McCain would have been any better, but you cant solve a problem until you realize there is one. If Ron Paul was in this video saying stuff like ” its a damn shame you fine white folks lost the right to keep your n****rs, thanks to those n****r lovin Yankees” then you would have a valid point about the racism, but he says nothing of the sort. Instead you decide to play the semantics game, grasping for straws that aren’t even there, except in your own self-absorbed minds. one last thing the U.S federal gov. has been caught so many times manipulating the american public, that your blind submission to it, is kinda pathetic, wake up and start thinking for your self.

It’s no surprise that Ron Paul is an economic illiterate. All it takes to figure that out is to listen to any two sentences he speaks.

I am amazed that a politician has finally grasped the real reason of our cil war! This is not revisionist history, ladies and gentlemen, this is the TRUTH!!!

Huge Ron Paul fan here. Two things though that he ignores: 1, any contract that legitimizes the mass scale subjugation of an entire race of people is by its nature illegitimate, void, irrelevant, wantonly immoral, beyond defense. 2, Lincoln did* try to buy the slaves, multiple times in fact, right up until 1862, on the eve of the war. Although I concede the South should absolutely, positively have been granted autonomy and/or total independence after the war and after a short term occupation to ensure emancipation was carried out and sustained. We are still coping with the consequences of that second grave moral failure to this day.

this man dont have a chance in hell of become president of anything

“and have no other choice”

You assume he lives in a society with no free market competition. The constitution favors a free market with open competition. He or She WILL have a choice.

Really? Ron Paul is far better than Obama. I mean look at who Obama associated himself with before presidency. But let’s say Paul is wrong for saying this. I think you are taking what he said out of context for your own political reasons. JFK voted against the 1957 Civil Rights Act. Did you even know that?

“Kennedy put political realism before any form of beliefs when he voted against Eisenhower’s 1957 Civil Rights Act. The route from bill to act nearly served to tear apart the Republicans and the Democrats were almost united to a politician in their opposition to the bill/act. Kennedy had aspirations to be the Democrats next presidential candidate in the 1960 election. If he was seen to be taking the party line and demonstrating strong leadership with regards to opposing the bill, this would do his chances no harm whatsoever. This proved to be the case and Kennedy lead the Democrats to victory over Richard Nixon in 1960.

However, during the presidential campaign and after he was nominated for the Democrats, Kennedy made it clear in his speeches that he was a supporter of civil rights. Historians are divided as to why he was ‘suddenly’ converted. Some saw the opposition to the 1957 Act as understandable from a political point of view. Others have adopted a more cynical view which is that Kennedy recognised that he needed the ‘Black Vote’ if he was to beat Nixon. Hence why he said in his campaign speeches that discrimination stained America as it lead the west’s stance against the Soviet Union during the Cold War. He also said that a decent president could end unacceptable housing conditions by using federal power. His call of sympathy to Martin Luther King’s wife, Coretta, when King was in prison was well publicised by the Democrats.”

How about I just go to the restaurant around the corner and buy my food. It’s a free market. I cannnot put a gun to the racist jerk’s head or change his opinion. He’s free to do it, although he won’t have it easy in today’s society.

Look up your history so that you can get some knowledge of the Confederate Flag of today. People around the world even use this flag for what it intends to mean. In the Philippines, you got people wearing Che Guevarra or Confederate Flag merchandise. So don’t think that Ron Paul is a racist. You’d be very wrong. Now to this article. It was intended to meet with the editors own personal opinions. He wants to sell his opinions with videos taken out of context. If you would have watched the video first before you read this guys article, you’d be thinking differently.

Now Obama, that’s a different story. A church he went to for 20 years who was led by a man named Reverend Wright. What I’m about to write is very true, which has been shown in videos. The Reverend himself admits to it. He spoke against the white race. He led a church by teaching black liberation theology. This is so far away from God. He compared his beliefs to Socialism and Marxism and said they are the same. So comparing himself to the Nazis, hmmmm. Now this is racism. Feeding hate to his people. This is suppose to make his people stronger? No, it actually does the opposite. You think Asian, Hispanics and white people do this? No, they got better things to do. For 20 years Obama went to this church. It sounds like a Klan meeting to me. A Klan with a tan. And people here question Ron Paul? Amazing.

That comment is actually far from the truth. I mean so far. If you are talking about slavery that still goes on in parts of Africa and China, then yeah, but it is still much lower than the number back in the day where the whole “civilized” world was involved in the slave trade business. Only a person without a brain would click “like” on your comment as if they are agreeing with you. It seems like comments like these are happening often nowadays. A comment completely wrong will be accepted. Why? Because people want to feel that we are living in a world difficult for them, even when it’s not. Slaves back in the day had it much harder than you without a choice. You will never ever experience that in your life. Neither will your kids. Unless you sit back hoping experience, knowledge and the ability of being a highly qualified professional will just magically appear in yourself without going out there and grabbing it. Life is full of challenges. You need to go out there, face them and overcome them. Don’t be scared and avoid them. Because if you do that, you will most likely fail at life and go out holding signs protesting people that did well for themselves. And will that get you to where you need to go? Nope. Even if you were given money or a job up in the higher floors of the corporate level, you’d lose it. Just because you went in way over your head. It’s not like the movies. This is real life. Protesting a cause that is distorted will only get you stinky, degraded and manipulated by mob mentality with false inspiration.

Why would people want racists to take down their “Whites Only” signs? If the law forbids a business owner to make it public that they are a disgusting bigot, that makes it much harder for me to find out that someone is completely unworthy of my business.

If I moved to or grew up in an area that still had such signs on storefronts or public facilities, I would be grateful for the message that I should get myself and my children the hell out such a cesspool of ignorance and I would think that any decent person would feel the same way, regardless of ancestry.

This article is ridiculous. Saying Paul is neo-confederate because of his link to the Mises institute is a gross distortion…as is the idea that he’s a racist because of his ties to the john birch society. He supports the Mises institute because Ludwig Von Mises was among the most important of all austrian economists and he supports the birch society because it’s a libertarian organization..the fact that some liberal decided that it’s “neo-confederate” or “racist” doesn’t mean anything. EVERY OTHER major nation ended slavery without going to war. Abe Lincoln wasn’t the greatest opponent to slavery. That’s NOT what the civil war was fought over…it was fought over states’ rights, and Paul is simply arguing that the south wanted states’ rights that are granted under the constitution. He is in no way racist and opposes the civil rights act because it infringes on property rights and increased racial tensions.

“Knowing Ron Paul and having talked to him, I think he’s a very fair guy I just think that a lot of folks do not understand the Libertarian platform. I’ve read Ron Paul’s whole philosophy, I also understand what he’s saying from a political standpoint and why people are attacking him. There are quite a few folks who don’t understand the libertarian philosophy. Ideology is one African-Americans should more open to.”

Austin, Texas NAACP President Nelson Linder

HERE COMES THE PROPAGANDIST AGAIN WITH BULLS**T. ENOUGH WITH THE fake CHANGE CRAP, I HAD ENOUGH OF THE LIES AND BULLS**T. RON PAUL FOR PRESIDENT, A REAL PRESIDENT AND NOT A BUNCH OF BULLS**TTING LIES I VOTED FOR LAST TIME AND NEVER AGAIN, BLACK OR WHITE… OBAMA IS A FRAUD, A PUPPET FOR THE NEW WORLD ORDER. THAT CRAP WAS SPILLED FROM HIS OWN LIPS, FAKE BASTARD… I’M A HATER YOU SAY? HELL YEAH I HATE BULLS**T, DO YOU?

ron paul is another racist white man, period. he does not deserve to be president of anything.

This belies a naive sense of what is entailed by society and civilization. You want us to all live on our own islands. It is impractical.

If you know the Libertarian views are actually capable of producing a balanced society, why are you not trying to set up some experiments in a few areas? Southern New Hamshire and north Texas or wherever.

Libertarians have great faith in their principles. It would supremely naive for the rest of us to apply their hypotheses to the US as a whole before verifying they actually work somewhere. And you guys don’t seem at all concerned about this lack of working models.

In my opinion, there is no Libertarian model — other than the early US when we had slaves and a continent to take away from the primitive natives. Until liberals have studies to point to, they are just side-show pretenders.

No, but you could put up a “Gringos only” sign in Arizona today and make a killing.

Just to clarify a few things on Paul’s behalf.

Paul voted against the civil rights act of 64 because although he supported desegregation for all public and government institutions, he felt congress had no authority to regulate private property.

On the civil war, there are several nations who freed their slaves with the act of purchasing their freedom and avoiding costly war. Slavery was certainly not the only issue of the civil war and for the author to imply that Paul was siding with the south on the issue of slavery is to outright LIE.

Finally, for the author to not understand the possibility that there are more than two sides to most issues is to belittle her intelligence and that of her readership.