This was in 1956, where the South was segregated. Black people were supposed to give up their sits to white people if they were seated on the front section of the bus. This was a rule that everyone followed, men, women and children would give up their sit, however, that fateful afternoon of December 1st, Rosa Parks was so tired from a long day at work and did not feel like giving up her seat.

Perhaps Rosa Parks did not mean to get arrested and did not mean to start a movement. Today many of us fail to make a difference, because we are afraid of what might happen to us. We fail to speak out when everything is nuts, because we do not want to lose our standing in society. This was not the case of Rosa Parks. Her refusal to give up her seat gave way to Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s rise to the national political scene. This marked the birth of the Civil Rights Movement.

Rosa Parks is truly a pioneer and an example to all of us. We live in a time where crony capitalism is running wild, where capitalism dictates the daily affairs of nations. We live in a time where money has more worth than a single life. Where instead of exporting democracy and prosperity, the United States exports weapons of mass destruction, death and tool kits for dictators all over the world.

There are movements around the world such as the Occupy Wall Street movement, that many people are afraid to join. Many people criticize it, but they forget the meaning of citizen participation. The journey truly starts with a single mile, or like another version of the quote states, “Even the longest journey must begin where you stand.” Real miracles and great deeds are put in motion by regular people like Rosa Parks that were too tired to comply, that were too tired to allow the oppressor to kick her when she was down.

Image via Wikipedia

Image via Wikipedia

Image via Wikipedia

Horace Kallen stated that from 1914 to 1924 the United States underwent “one of the most critical ten-year periods” for its history (Foner, 181). World War I spanned from 1914-1918, and the weight of the war before American intervention, during American intervention, and post-war greatly transformed American society. It was during this time period that Women’s suffrage groups, African-American Rights groups, Pro-Labor groups,Free Speech groups, and the overlap between them sought to influence American society through the prospect of American intervention in the war. This paper will give evidence that the aforementioned groups used the promise of spreading democracy to the world through war to attempt achieve their own goals domestically by explaining pre-war conditions, how they used the war to attempt to better these conditions, and how post-war these conditions were transformed. It will discuss the results of their efforts, both negative and positive, on society post-war. 

Women’s suffrage, the movement focused on the equality of women and their right to vote, was well established pre-war. Greenwhich Village, San Francisco, Chicago and other cities held sub-cultures of “much-publicized young, unmarried, self-supporting women” who, along with sexual revolutionary ideas, believed in the “freedom of any kind for women” (Foner, 167). Pre-war, these ideas were censored by the mainstream. “Anthony Comstock ordered one issue [pertaining to the freedom of women's sexuality and speaking of venereal disease] barred from the mails (Foner, 167). Women, at the time before American intervention, were not allowed to vote, not allowed to “control her own body” through the use of birth control and were unequal to men in social standings. Facing many of the same discriminations as women, African-Americans were fighting for their own civil rights. African-Americans felt “disenfranchised” by American society and American politics (Du Bois, 506). In 1911, Du Bois and white reformers created the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) in an attempt to have the 14th and 15th Amendments to the Constitution enforced (Foner, 173). The African-American community was “painfully aware of the dichotomy between American freedom for whites and the continuing subjection of the Negroes” (Foner, 173). The proof to Du Bois and the rest of the communities’ claim was in the violence. One 1906 case out of “the hundreds of lynchings in these years” saw a white mob hang three black men falsely accused of rape from an electric light pole (Foner, 172). These pre-war conditions did not ring of the freedom promised to them when their ancestors, and themselves, were freed. 

Simultaneously, labor unions and laborers were feeling much of the disenfranchisement of the African-Americans and women. Union members were jailed and stripped of freedom of speech. “The longest, bloodiest, and most publicized battle took place in San Diego in 1911, where [Industrial Workers of the World] members, after being arrested for violating a ban on downtown public speaking, were handed over to vigilante groups for punishment” (Foner, 165). The laborers of the time were not given the rightful entitlements of American citizens. As such, the power behind unifying under a labor union was lost and became dangerous. The labor unions, African-Americans, and women all were striped of the freedom of speech when they spoke out radically to improve their lot in life. The state of this right was summed up by a scholar and expounded upon by Foner, in these terms, “no genuinely effective, legally enforceable right to freedom of speech existed in the United States before the 1920s” (Foner, 163). But resistance and determination to continue to push for the enforcement of the First Amendment before American intervention in the war (1900-1915) brought about “more free speech cases…to court than in a previous century” (Foner, 164). The climate of the time, regarding free speech and its limitations when it was applied to African-Americans, women and labor unions, caused Clarence Darrow to state, “I don’t think we live in a free country or enjoy civil liberties” (Foner, 164). 

However disenfranchised these groups viewed as radical, leftist and progressive felt, they were among the biggest supporters of the American intervention into World War I. “To them, the war offered the possibility of rationalizing American society, instilling a sense of national unity and self-sacrifice, and imposing justice in labor relations” (Foner, 168). Woodrow Wilson, in 1917, issued a statement to Congress to join the war on the side of the English. His wish was “to set up among the really free and self-governed peoples of the world such a concept of purpose and of action as will henceforth ensure the observance of those principles” (Sixty-Fifth Congress, 4). John Dewey saw in this purpose “the social possibilities of war” (Foner, 169). Others joined with him, “Walter Lippmann, Herbet Croly, AFL head Samuel Gompers, and prominent feminist social reformers like Jane Addams, Florence Kelley, and Charlotte Perkins Gilman” all strove to benefit from aligning themselves with Wilson’s war initiative. President Wilson traded his cautious support of women’s suffrage in 1916 for  their support later when war was declared. “But it was with the black Americans that the wartime language of freedom inspired the most exalted hopes” (Foner, 172). Du Bois encouraged black to enlist in the segregated armies, hoping that their patriotism in the war would lead to equality at home after the war; “Let us, while this war lasts, forget our special grievances and close our ranks shoulder to shoulder with our white fellow citizens” (Du Bois, 505). They believed that “if [they] obstruct, [they] will surrender all power to influence. If [they] responsibly approve, [they] then retain [their] power for guiding” (Bourne, 3). 

The supporters of the war from the groups did receive opposition from counterparts. IWW and the Socialist party, feminist Alice Paul, and Randolph Bourne. The Socialist party called the war “a crime against the people of the United States” in their 1917 convention (Foner, 169). Alice Paul, whose counterparts Carrie Catt and other traditional women’s suffragists supported the war, likened President Wilson to kaiser (Foner, 171). She demonstrated at the White House, chaining herself to the fence. Bourne inquired about the actions of his fellow intellectuals, posing “They might have turned their intellectual energy not to the problem of jockeying the nation into war but to the problem of using our vast neutral power to attain democratic ends for the rest of the world and ourselves without the use of the malevolent technique of war” (Bourne, 2). Bourne, in his disapproval, questions the thinking that only attaching their hitches to the war wagon will result in the achievement of the groups’ goals. In spite of the disapproval, the majority of progressives, women’s suffrage groups, African-American groups, and pro-union groups supported the war.

In 1917, the Committee on Public Information was created. Wilson’s committee used pro-war propaganda to arouse support from all demographics by help of journalist,s artists, academic and progressives (Foner, 169). The propaganda was “couched in the more positive Progressive language of social cooperation and expanded democracy” (Foner, 170). They used promises of eight-hour work days and living wages to appeal to the disenfranchised labor unions and African-Americans (Foner, 170). “In 1917, Wilson told the AFL, ‘ while we are fighting for freedom, we must see to it among other things that labor is free” (Foner, 175). The backing of the disenfranchised leaders of labor unions, women’s suffrage, free speech, and African-Americans, along with their rhetoric and promises offered in the propaganda cemented the support of these groups’ followers and their hope for a better life for themselves in their support. 

The African-American, pro-union, women’s suffrage, and free speech causes at the start of the war were all prime for societal changes. They started to exercise their civil rights to protest and write of changes they wished to see. However society, determined they were too progressive, radical and leftist, revoked these rights through federal and local governments, and vigilante groups. Violence and an even greater feeling of disenfranchisement perpetuated through the groups. With the involvement of the United States in a global war for democracy, freedom and the liberties that went with, the groups majority supported the war. They hoped that their support would entitle their groups to a shared equality and a chance to form the post-war society. The leaders of the groups helped appeal to the country to aid in the support and promised their followers change stemming from the war for freed manned democracy. The Committee on Public Information channeled this rhetoric, which led to a greater belief in the transformation of society in America. However, after the war, the transformation was slow and not as far reaching as the groups foresaw, leading to more hardships for the groups to endure, despite some victories.

Women’s suffrage groups finally achieved the right to vote with the ratification of the Nineteenth Amendment in 1920. However, they were still subject to the inequality between the sexes. Their right to vote cost them protections they were accustomed to. In 1929, the repealing of the Sheppard-Towner Act of 1921 took away federal assistance to programs involving infant and child health care (fonder, 180). It wasn’t until 1930 that “the Court reversed the conviction under the Comstock Law of Mary Ware Dennett for sending a sex education pamphlet…through the mails” (Foner, 185). Sexual identity and expression were a staple of the feminist, women’s suffrage movement.They were subject to anti-women’s rights groups such as the Ku Klux Klan. Although they were given the right to vote, their other goals, like sexual expression, equal pay and treatment, were not met by the social transformation immediately after World War I.  

“The war unleashed social changes that altered the contours of American race relations,” Foner states (Foner, 173). With the increased production needed to keep up with wartime demands, many African-Americans migrated North to work in factories, hopeful for more jobs and better pay. The North also offered a less violent atmosphere, education for their children and the chance to vote (Foner, 173). However, a riot in Chicago in 1919 “exposed the vast disappointments that migrants encountered: severely restricted employment opportunities, exclusion from unions, [and] rigid housing segregation” (Foner, 174). The promise of a better life for African-Americans stemming from their war support so far was unfulfilled.  “The result was a feeling of deep betrayal that affected everyone from Du Bois…to ordinary black Americans” (Foner, 174). The migration of African-Americans to the North created a new transformation in society, albeit not a positive one. With the large migration, black ghettoes in the North increased. Both the northern and southern states saw leaseback from society. “Mississippi [was] the first state to revise its constitution to eliminate black suffrage” (Foner, 186). The black community was victim to the other progressive reforms, and with women gaining suffrage, blacks were pushed further down the societal ladder. Black men being barred from unions could not take advantage of “industrial freedom” and black women worked “for wages that offered no hope of…independence” (Foner, 186). The re-birth of the Ku Klux Klan in the early 1920s was “perhaps the most menacing reflection” of the post-war transformation for African Americans (Foner, 188). 

Peace from war did little to bring peace to labor-relations at home. “The armistice was followed, in 1919 an 1920, by the greatest wave of labor unrest in American history” (Foner, 175). Kansas prohibited strikes in 1920, and the rhetoric used by Wilson’s Committee on Public Information was turned back at the nation, inspiring “the era’s greatest labor uprisings, the steel strike of 1919-20″ (Foner, 176). Though in 1918, they won an eight hour work day, peace brought a drop in production and with it, employment. “If the steel strike illustrated the aspirations galvanized by the war in the name of freedom, its crushing defeat marked the beginning of an era of retreat for organized labor” (Foner, 176). The statement by Foner shows that while the war positively affected labor during the war, the post war transformations did as much, if not more to make it all for nothing. 

During the American intervention in World War I, free speech rights were revoked even more. The Espionage Act of 1917 “granted extremely broad powers to the Postmastr General to bar antiwar publications from the mails” (Foner, 177). In a gross misuse of powers, the government charged over two thousand for violating this law and more than one thousand were found guilty. The most famous being Eugene V. Debs. Debs was “sentenced to ten years in prison for an anti-war speech” (Foner, 177). Out of these violations of civil rights and freedom of speech came a more sensitive society in American. The formation of the American Civil Liberties Union, which still exists today, came in 1917. John Dewey was one of the ACLU members. The ACLU fought for civil liberties, and from its inception focused on the freedom of speech. “Slowly, the tide of civil liberties jurisprudence began to turn” (Foner, 184). In 1933, the Customs Service ban on James Joyce’s Ulysses was lifted (Foner, 185). 

World War I was the catalyst for the transformation of social views between 1914 and 1924. Women’s suffrage groups, African-American rights groups, pro-union labor groups, and free speech activists all felt disenfranchised with society at the time of American intervention of the war. Their civil liberties and rights were revoked through government, both federal and local, and social force. Their status of unequal pushed them to attempt to start changes and transformations in the way society viewed them and treated them. They were met with violence, restrictions of rights, incarceration, and denial of the ability to fairly take part in the economic market through unfair pay and work conditions. Woodrow Wilson’s appeal for support for the war brought about an opportunity for these groups to align their achievements with a war for freedom and democracy for all. Wilson and the groups leaders, through the Committee on Public Information, used rhetoric similar to the groups’ own, giving them more hope in a better chance to influence societal views. However, the war effort gave only slimmer of hope for some groups. Labor improved as more production meant more jobs; African-Americans went North to benefit fro these jobs and give their families a better life. At the same time, free speech was restricted even more and an increase in charges for improper uses of free speech skyrocketed. Unions were not allowed to strike, and war dissenters could not peacefully protest the war in any way. “The wartime belief in conscious creation of a new world order died in Paris, and the government’s success in whipping up mass hysteria and xenophobic hatreds seemed to undermine the very foundation of democratic thought” (Foner, 181).

Even after the war, speech was still restricted through the continuation of the Espionage Act and the re-emergence of the KKK saw a backlash of anti-black rights and anti-women’s rights. Despite the negatives, there were positive transformations in American society from the war. In 1920, women were given the right to vote and by the late 1920s and early 1930s the laws that restricted freedom of speech and union strikes were starting to be repealed. The one great transformation of society from the war came in “the birth of a coherent concept of civil liberties”during the 1920s and onward (Foner, 183). The attempt to ride the coattails of the American intervention to bring a change in civil liberties for union workers, African-Americans, women and freedom of speech resulted in a transformation of American society that started in opposition but slowly turned to more supportive by the end of the 1920s and early 1930s. While not all war is transformative on the way society perceives certain groups or ideas, World War I provided the catalyst to transformation in America. Without American intervention, the groups would not have allied themselves with the war cause which in the end caused strife between the different cultures and ideals of the diverse American public. After the war was won, the American society turned its back on women’s rights, African- American rights, union’s rights and the rights to freedom of speech which caused even more disenfranchisement. This increased disenfranchisement and the abuse of powers by American government to quell the progress of these groups brought about the societal transformation. Because of this, it is evident that the American involvement in World War I caused the transformation of society’s views of freedom of speech, African-Americans, labor unions, and women’s rights, even if it was not always positive for these groups. 

Works Cited

Bourne, Randolph. “The War and the Intellectuals.” Seven Arts 2. 1917. 133-136.

Du Bois. “Close Ranks.” The Crisis. 1918. “Returning Soldiers.” The Crisis. 1919.

Foner, Eric. The Story of American Freedom. WW Norton. New York: 1998.

Sixty-Fifth Congress, 1 Session, Senate Document No. 5

Over the past two days, January 16/17th, we have witnessed not only the commemoration of the unforgettable Martin Luther King Jr., but also the 70th birthday of arguably the most iconic sportsman of the 20th cebntury, Mohammad Ali.

Martin Luther, born on January 15, 1929, in Atlanta, Georgia worked tirelessly all his adult life for racial equality and civil rights in the USA. His father and grandfather had both been ministers, and he learned to read pre-school courtesy of his school-teacher mother.

Martin was an exemplary student, skipping grades both at  elementary and high schools enjoying reading, singing, playing ball games, entering Morehouse College, Atlanta, when only 15, and having already been the victim of racist abuse, he decided to campaign for racial equality.  

College graduation saw him become Dr. King, before he married and moved to Alabama, having followed in his father’s footsteps and become a minister. He became a very active campaigner for racial equality, participating in many peaceful demonstrations protesting the unfair treatment of African-Americans, making his iconic I Have A Dream speech in 1963, before winning, in 1964, the Nobel Peace Prize, only to be assassinated in 1968, at the height of his popularity.

Americans rightly celebrate Martin Luther King Day every January – on his birthday – and  August 28 is called Dream Day, in memory of that famous speech. Martin Luther was undoubtedly one of the most iconic black men of his time, but he was not alone in that.

Another, arguably equally influential character was the immortal ‘Float Like A butterfly, Sting Like a Bee’ charismatic boxing legend Cassius Clay, who became better known as Mohammad Ali, who celebrates his 70th birthday today.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RmaHGY7BEog

Muhammad Ali was born Cassius Marcellus Clay Jr. on January 17, 1942 in Louisville, Kentucky. At 12, he and a friend went, on their bikes to the Columbia Auditorium, only to find that Muhammad’s had been stolen. He angrily reported this to police officer Joe Martin, a boxing coach at the Columbia Gym, who told the young man he should learn to fight, and within a few days, Muhammad began boxing training.

Training six days a week, he woke early enough to go running before school, working out at the gym afterwards. Ali created his own eating regimen, such as milk and raw eggs for breakfast, totally avoiding from junk food, alcohol, and cigarettes to become the best boxer he could be.

He won the Olympic heavyweight boxing gold medal in 1960 and turned professional. Over the next four years, Ali outrageously boasted that he was the greatest of all time, and even began predicting the outcomes of his fights, always correctly. By the time he fought Sonny Listoin in 1964, he was already hugely popular.

Up to 1967, he beat every opponent with ease, and was iconic to the public, but being convicted of draft dodging in that year meant his exile from the professional ring for almost four years. In fact it would be 1974 before that incredible ‘Rumble in the Jungle’ fight in Zaire against George Foreman which Ali won to regain his crown.

Then, in 1978, having lost the title again to Leon Spinks, Ali became the first man in history to win that title three times by defeating Spinks in a re-match. He retired on June 26, 1979, beset by Parkinson’s disease,  but he had undoubtedly been the greatest heavyweight boxer of all time, in his professional career, winning 56 bouts and losing a mere 5, 37 of his wins by knockout.

Increasingly slurred speech, shaking hands, and more meant that  doctors diagnosed Ali with the awful degenerative condition in 1984, and he gradually faded from public view, though many a fan was moved to tears when seeing his discomfort as he lit the Olympic flame of the 1996 opening Ceremonies of in Atlanta.

For almost 30 years now, this iconic and courageous man, who gave so much pleasure in his heyday to so many, has worked tirelessly in helping world charities, and is loved greatly to this day and for many remains an iconic 20th century hero. We wish him well.

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.-One Dream Still Waiting for Be Fulfilled

One of the most famous speeches from Martin Luther King Jr was on August 28th 1963, where he had professed his dream that all people no matter which race would be considered equal. A dream which was the noble of thoughts and a dream that really still has not been yet to fulfilled to the extent that Dr. King may have envisioned.

In many ways, we have come a long way since the 1960s, but in other ways, society still is rather not equal for many ways. There is still a great deal of mistrust regarding certain races, which can lead to discrimination. Even if we just sit right inside the bubble of the United States and do not rather go outside of the borders, there are going to be a lot of issues involving discrimination.

People of a different skin color might not have to use a separate water fountain or move to the back of the bus any longer, but it would be foolish to think that there is not some form of discrimination going on in this country.  We might be all humans, but pride tends to be a downfall where we cannot truly admit our equality.  

And when we extend beyond the United States, then we really hit a powder keg of insanity involving racism. And going beyond the color of skin, there are religion, wealth, and many other things that people are judged upon, that indicates that equality and freedom is not something that is going to come across rather easily. Most certainly here in the United States but elsewhere around the world.

And equality is something that most do want, but the problem is, relations tend to be tense at best between different races. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. said that he had a dream and it is a dream that is shared by many. It is one dream that will keep people reaching for the stars, for some golden promise, that has ambitious lofty aims, perhaps too much so.

In the end, for all of the advancements that people have made, we still are rather stuck in our ways. We are all share the fact that we are living breathing people. Yet that fact is lost on some.

That is the dream of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., where we will be all equal.

Is that dream still alive?

A question that may never be answered properly I’m sure.

Monday, January 16, 2011 will be the twenty-sixth celebration of Martin Luther King, Jr. Day in the United States. The holiday was first celebrated on January 20, 1986 following the bill that was signed three years earlier by President Ronald Reagan. In 1992, President George H. W. Bush proclaimed the holiday to be held on the third Monday in January. Surprisingly, it wasn’t until January 17th of 2000 that the holiday was observed by all fifty states. The last states to recognize the holiday were Utah, Arizona and New Hampshire.

Many people have a vague knowledge of his role in the civil rights movement, and most have heard parts of his famous, “I Have a Dream” speech. What many people aren’t familiar with are the many awards and acknowledgments of respect that were bestowed upon Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. during his life. He was awarded over fifty honorary degrees from colleges, both in the United States and overseas. He was given the American Liberties Medallion by the American Jewish Committee and the Margaret Sanger award by the Planned Parenthood Federation. Perhaps the culmination of his award path was his being the recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize in 1964.

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was assassinated on April 4, 1968 in Memphis and was posthumously awarded a Congressional Gold Medal and the Presidential Medal of Freedom. But it could be said that none of the awards or laurels he has received rise to that of the national holiday in recognition for his service to the country. Take a moment on the third Monday in January to learn a bit about this great American and understand his contribution to the people.

Image via Wikipedia

One of Martin Luther King’s most famous speeches are:

“I have a Dream” By Martin Luther King  :

Mountain Top By Martin Luther King 

As you can see from the Videos Martin luther king was a Very wise man and was very powerful influence to people and until this day we still follow by what he tought us!

He is one of the Great that left us too soon only at the age of 39 

This is in memory of Martin luther king. May you be Free at last! 

Image via Wikipedia

Just as Ron Paul, he would see imaginary friends. He believed he was a champion of freedom and honor, so everyday, he would set out for a new adventure. What strikes me as a mere coincidence is that according to many, Don Quixote was a representation of the collective mindset of a nation that was in decline. Spain was one of the most powerful and rich nations of the world. After “conquering” most of Latin America, Spain was rich in part for the large amounts of gold found in the New World.

However, the nation spent its wealth on war and other ventures. The morale was lowered and the only thing people had to cheer them up was the past. Here comes Don Quixote, an old an fragile man trying to bring back what once back and cannot longer be. Many people are certain that America is in decline. The many wars abroad are emptying the treasury at an alarming rate. The middle class is disappearing, jobs are fleeing the country and the hunger for war is at is highest.

The influence of the United States is diminishing. China is climbing at the top of the global economy and its building up its war armament. Countries where once the U.S had a tight grip on politics are electing leftist presidents as in the case of Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez, Nicaragua’s Rafael Correa or even Ecuador’s Daniel Ortega. Latin America is shifting is center of power towards itself, the creation of CELAC promises to form a united front against imperialism according to the Bolivarian Revolution.

While Ron Paul’s foreign policy is in the right place, his policies at home are not. Just as the old Quixote wants to live in a world of knights and chivalry, Ron Paul wants to live in a world where the currency is nothing but good old gold and people of different races live in “separate but equal” spheres. Ron Paul’s windmills are the very own notion of Civil Rights for minorities. The very own civil rights that outlawed discrimination in the public sphere, that supports voting rights for minorities, that ends a culture of impunity and that makes the very own words that the United States of America where founded upon, “All men are created equal.”

Ron Paul’s quixotic cries for “freedom,” against war, against federal reserve are nothing more than tactics to rally support and bereave the nation of its freedom and its right to determine its political destiny. Ron Paul’s true agenda is in favor of big businesses, corporate greed, anti environment where everything is for sale to the highest bidder. While he is trying to bring back and age or racism and turn back the political clock at least 50 years in the past he is forgetting that the situation has changed. He is forgetting that the people do not want to hear “patriotic” rhetoric, the people want action. An agent of division is out of touch with the sentiments of freedom and justice on which this nation was founded.

Do you believe that Ron Paul’s views on race are separatist? Why or why not? Share your thoughts and this story with others.

In his speech against the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Ron Paul explains that the federal government has used its power to infringe on the freedom of business owners across the United States. According to his speech the federal government was given “unprecedented power over hiring, employee relations, and customer service practices of every business in the country.” Many people support Ron Paul on this, because they claim that the federal government does not have to proper authority to tell business owners who to serve, who to hire, or who to fire.

It seems that Ron Paul lacks historical knowledge. He ignores the conditions that gave birth to legislation such as the Civil Rights Act. Starting with slavery and all the way to Jim Crow, African Americans were brutalized, systematically intimidated, and lynched in the South. Blacks had to occupy the “Colored Section”of the bus, could not vote and they had to attend segregated schools. It is because of this that the Civil Rights Act of 64 exists.

It is necessary to look at the Civil Rights Act of 64 in order to come to terms with Ron Paul’s opposition to it. The Civil Rights Act has different sections and titles. When reading Paul’s speech against it two parts of the Civil Rights Act come to mind: Title II and Title VII.

Title II of the Civil Rights Act outlaws segregation in places like theaters, motels, restaurants, or any other places that are public and participate in interstate commerce. Title VII prohibits discrimination in the work place when it comes to race, national, origin, religion or sex. Ron Paul said that the act gives the government power over “customer service practices,” which are covered by Title II” and over “hiring, employee relations,” which are covered by Title VII.

In theory, Ron Paul is supporting the continuation of segregation in the workplace and in the public sphere. If this is not racism, then what is it? Why does he even bother fighting a war that was already lost? Especially when segregation and lynchings would have continued in the South without proper legislation to stop it. While many view Ron Paul’s opposition to this piece of legislation as courageous, many see it as racist. Ron Paul supports the rights of business owners to discriminate, but who defended the rights of African Americans and other minorities to not be discriminated against?

Discrimination in the workplace and in the public sphere is a form of systematic oppression. It denies people of color the opportunity to make money and support themselves. This condemns them to perpetual poverty. Ron Paul prides himself of being a Libertarian and according to Libertarian principles people need to be self-reliant. How can a person be self-reliant if that person cannot earn their own money? Is it a true Libertarian principle to deny a person the means to make a living?

Image via Wikipedia

Image via Wikipedia

What are your thoughts on this, is Ron Paul a racist or just someone who loves freedom?

Image by Jayel Aheram via Flickr

Ron Paul supporters bank on the fact that they are unique. They want pot to be legalized, they want to put an end to the FED (Federal Reserve), they want less government, and they claim that they don’t want any rights taken away from them. They condemn the “sheep” as they call them, for being against any of this, and being against it just means that you are against Ron Paul, by the way, because if you really did want civil liberties, less government, and pot to be legal, you would totally support Ron Paul. Hmm…does anyone see a problem with this?

Well, let’s tackle one thing at a time. I’ll start with Ron Paul’s campaign claim to “shut down the FED.” Ron Paul supporters love him for promising this and they will smite anyone who disagrees. The FED is the problem and it needs to be shut down and Ron Paul says he will do it when elected president. A promise is good enough for them. Right, because the president gets to do whatever he wants, regardless of what Congress says. And I guess Ron Paul is the first honest presidential candidate, so he couldn’t possibly be lying just so he could get elected, right?

Campaign promises are worth about as much as birthday wishes. And shutting down the FED is one hell of a birthday wish. Moving on.

So Ron Paul is all for less government. His followers think this is a good idea? Let’s recap. Deregulation of the banks caused them to get big—too big to fail, if I remember correctly. Corporations are people, now, because of less government. Yet, this seems like a good idea to Ron Paul supporters, who insist less government equals more civil liberties. That brings me to my next point—civil liberties.

How ironic is it that Ron Paul supporters would claim that he, of all people, cares the most about their civil rights? This man who is a bigot, a racist, a Young Earth Creationist, anti women’s rights, and against the separation of church and state—but he will work hard to make it legal for you to smoke a joint in public if you vote for him—does not care about your civil rights. This man who was an obstetrician and gynecologist before entering the world of politics and delivered some 4,000 babies wants to overturn Roe v. Wade. This man is the author of several racist newsletters, and as much as he might deny it, those newsletters had his stamp of approval. He’s a Constitutionalist, for crying out loud! He holds the most conservative voting record in the history of Congress since 1937. How modern can he possibly be?                                                     

The fact is, Ron Paul is NOT an adequate representation of what freedom and rights are all about. His supporters are the sheep. They will follow him no matter what truth is revealed about him because for some reason, they see in him some kind of super hero. The fact that Ron Paul is on the opposite side of the spectrum of most politicians today does NOT make him a good alternative. He may be on the opposite side of the spectrum, but he is far away from reality, as well.

I am all for legalizing marijuana, but I have to wonder, is this cult of Ron Paul only supporting him and willing to trade in their hard fought and won civil liberties just so they can smoke a joint every now and then? With all the new evidence piling up against this image that Ron Paul has tried to create of being a tolerant and seemingly modern candidate, I think that is the only reasonable assumption a person can make. As a person who debates regularly with his cult members, that seems to be the only thing they care about. It’s time to take the blinders off, Ron Paul sheep.