Ron Paul Anthem - Aimee Allen

[mromro]

[StickyGreen]

Good luck with that, people here hate Ron Paul and think he's racist.

[mromro]

Ron Paul is a rascist .. He hates brain dead boot lickers with simple small minds. The ones ready to give up their civil liberties for so called security.

[Coup]

This song is terrible. lol

[StickyGreen]

Originally Posted by mromro

brain dead boot lickers with simple small minds. The ones ready to give up their civil liberties for so called security.

Sounds like most Americans these days, unfortunately...

[porno jew]

here is another good one.



by http://www.adl.org/main_Extremism/po...government.htm

[mromro]

BUMP...In Your Face.... Wake Up!

[AsianDivaGirlsWebDude]

ADG

[StickyGreen]

Originally Posted by AsianDivaGirlsWebDude

ADG

That shit is painful to even try to watch because that douchebag news shill keeps interrupting him... lol, let the man speak...

[Operator]

Porno Jew is composed of gum drops.

[StickyGreen]

Originally Posted by AsianDivaGirlsWebDude

ADG

On July 3, 2004, Ron Paul was the only Congressman to vote against a bill hailing the 40th anniversary of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. In this speech to Congress, Ron Paul courageously spoke out on the often controversial issues of race relations and affirmative action. He explained why the Civil Right Act had failed to achieve its stated goals of promoting racial harmony and a color-blind society.

Ron Paul: Mr. Speaker, I rise to explain my objection to H.Res. 676. I certainly join my colleagues in urging Americans to celebrate the progress this country has made in race relations. However, contrary to the claims of the supporters of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the sponsors of H.Res. 676, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not improve race relations or enhance freedom. Instead, the forced integration dictated by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 increased racial tensions while diminishing individual liberty.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 gave the federal government unprecedented power over the hiring, employee relations, and customer service practices of every business in the country. The result was a massive violation of the rights of private property and contract, which are the bedrocks of free society. The federal government has no legitimate authority to infringe on the rights of private property owners to use their property as they please and to form (or not form) contracts with terms mutually agreeable to all parties. The rights of all private property owners, even those whose actions decent people find abhorrent, must be respected if we are to maintain a free society.

This expansion of federal power was based on an erroneous interpretation of the congressional power to regulate interstate commerce. The framers of the Constitution intended the interstate commerce clause to create a free trade zone among the states, not to give the federal government regulatory power over every business that has any connection with interstate commerce.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 not only violated the Constitution and reduced individual liberty; it also failed to achieve its stated goals of promoting racial harmony and a color-blind society. Federal bureaucrats and judges cannot read minds to see if actions are motivated by racism. Therefore, the only way the federal government could ensure an employer was not violating the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was to ensure that the racial composition of a business’s workforce matched the racial composition of a bureaucrat or judge’s defined body of potential employees. Thus, bureaucrats began forcing employers to hire by racial quota. Racial quotas have not contributed to racial harmony or advanced the goal of a color-blind society. Instead, these quotas encouraged racial balkanization, and fostered racial strife.

Of course, America has made great strides in race relations over the past forty years. However, this progress is due to changes in public attitudes and private efforts. Relations between the races have improved despite, not because of, the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, while I join the sponsors of H.Res. 676 in promoting racial harmony and individual liberty, the fact is the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not accomplish these goals. Instead, this law unconstitutionally expanded federal power, thus reducing liberty. Furthermore, by prompting raced-based quotas, this law undermined efforts to achieve a color-blind society and increased racial strife. Therefore, I must oppose H.Res. 676.

[Coup]

Originally Posted by AsianDivaGirlsWebDude

ADG

rofl.

[DamageX]

[AsianDivaGirlsWebDude]

Originally Posted by StickyGreen

On July 3, 2004, Ron Paul was the only Congressman to vote against a bill hailing the 40th anniversary of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. In this speech to Congress, Ron Paul courageously spoke out on the often controversial issues of race relations and affirmative action. He explained why the Civil Right Act had failed to achieve its stated goals of promoting racial harmony and a color-blind society.

Ron Paul: Mr. Speaker, I rise to explain my objection to H.Res. 676. I certainly join my colleagues in urging Americans to celebrate the progress this country has made in race relations. However, contrary to the claims of the supporters of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the sponsors of H.Res. 676, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not improve race relations or enhance freedom. Instead, the forced integration dictated by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 increased racial tensions while diminishing individual liberty.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 gave the federal government unprecedented power over the hiring, employee relations, and customer service practices of every business in the country. The result was a massive violation of the rights of private property and contract, which are the bedrocks of free society. The federal government has no legitimate authority to infringe on the rights of private property owners to use their property as they please and to form (or not form) contracts with terms mutually agreeable to all parties. The rights of all private property owners, even those whose actions decent people find abhorrent, must be respected if we are to maintain a free society.

This expansion of federal power was based on an erroneous interpretation of the congressional power to regulate interstate commerce. The framers of the Constitution intended the interstate commerce clause to create a free trade zone among the states, not to give the federal government regulatory power over every business that has any connection with interstate commerce.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 not only violated the Constitution and reduced individual liberty; it also failed to achieve its stated goals of promoting racial harmony and a color-blind society. Federal bureaucrats and judges cannot read minds to see if actions are motivated by racism. Therefore, the only way the federal government could ensure an employer was not violating the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was to ensure that the racial composition of a business?s workforce matched the racial composition of a bureaucrat or judge?s defined body of potential employees. Thus, bureaucrats began forcing employers to hire by racial quota. Racial quotas have not contributed to racial harmony or advanced the goal of a color-blind society. Instead, these quotas encouraged racial balkanization, and fostered racial strife.

Of course, America has made great strides in race relations over the past forty years. However, this progress is due to changes in public attitudes and private efforts. Relations between the races have improved despite, not because of, the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, while I join the sponsors of H.Res. 676 in promoting racial harmony and individual liberty, the fact is the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not accomplish these goals. Instead, this law unconstitutionally expanded federal power, thus reducing liberty. Furthermore, by prompting raced-based quotas, this law undermined efforts to achieve a color-blind society and increased racial strife. Therefore, I must oppose H.Res. 676.

That dovetails rather nicely with the racist agenda. No wonder neo-nazi groups like Stormfront support Ron Paul:



Stormfront also donated to Ron Paul's election campaign. When it was brought to his attention that the money came from a racist neo-nazi group, Paul acknowledged that the money came from the neo-nazi group, and further indicated that he had no intention of returning the money.

It's things like that, and the racist rants in the Ron Paul Newsletter (which Ron Paul was the Editor of, and made millions off of), that cause many people to have serious doubts about Ron Paul.

ADG

[2intense]

Originally Posted by Operator

Porno Jew is composed of gum drops.

[seeandsee]

Is she singing: FAT FOO ???

[DamageX]

Originally Posted by AsianDivaGirlsWebDude

Stormfront also donated to Ron Paul's election campaign. When it was brought to his attention that the money came from a racist neo-nazi group, Paul acknowledged that the money came from the neo-nazi group, and further indicated that he had no intention of returning the money.

Who said that thing that "I may not like what you're saying but I'm prepared to die for your right to say it" or something thereabout? I'm forgetting...

[u-Bob]

[u-Bob]

Originally Posted by DamageX

Who said that thing that "I may not like what you're saying but I'm prepared to die for your right to say it" or something thereabout? I'm forgetting...

it's been attributed to Voltaire.