-11 votes

Louis Farrakhan: The Liberty Movement's Missing Speaker?

Louis Farrakhan endorsed Ron Paul


Farrakhan is a speaker of Liberty, and he's got much more to say than Alex Jones IMO. http://www.youtube.com/wa...

I'd like to invite a Louis Farrakhan thread and how we can achieve Liberty together.


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

No, You Excuse-Making Collectivist Twit...

...He has clearly made comments that prove he is fundamentally stupid, or duplicitous, reference our founding, about what the founders knew that constituted a militia and the simple and unassailable fact that Amendment II was enumerated to preserve the right of the people to keep and bear arms of military equivalency with the express intent to ensure that 'the people' had the means to overthrow a tyrannical government if it ever became necessary.

He flat-out stated that he wants to remove so called 'assault weapons.

He stated that the 'people' are far too violent, are angry at government and may revolt (gee whiz, wonder if THAT was ever envisioned at the time of our founding and during the development of the Bill of Rights).

He has flat out stated that Amendment II is no longer necessary or relevant, because, as he stupidly or duplicitous states, we have a 'well-regulated militia' now, which we did not have (LMAO) at the time of our founding.

He flatly states that this well-regulated militia that constitutes and meets the intention of Amendment II consists of the armed federal government military, the armed federal government controlled national guard, the armed state police and the armed local police.

You continue to shine light on what you really are and what your underlying beliefs are. I would assess that you are stupid by some of your statements and defenses, but it is clear that you are defending (albeit you are trying to cover that defense a bit by feigning ignorance and non-clarity) his clearly advocated beliefs.

One cannot but conclude that you do not oppose those beliefs and his advocated positions related to the fundamental right to keep and bear arms, the role of government and Amendment II itself.

It is crystal-clear to ANY man of even marginal reading comprehension ability and a modicum of simple, basic assessment skills.

It adds up to exposure....of you.

The reason I read! I get smarter! and I get to laugh!

You said: "He[Farrakhan] has flat out stated that Amendment II is no longer necessary or relevant, because, as he stupidly or duplicitous states, we have a 'well-regulated militia' now, which we did not have (LMAO) at the time of our founding."

Yah, that militia that routed the Brittish...those uh colonists? Every day men fighting the King's men...that well ordered militia? What a grand plan!!! That is the well ordered militia that is to bear arms...perpetually...so that the government is of, by, and for the people having the consent of the governed whose right to bear arms shall not be infringed.

Thank you for pointing that out. I should have seen the duplicity myself.



...I thought that was a 'sure-thing' smoking gun, but people still laud Ol' Louie's constitutionalism, liberty-advocacy and his 'amazing intellect and depth of knowledge'.

Unreal what some people grab onto, believe, and won't let go no matter the evidence.

Oh well, it is what it is and I am glad that you saw and conceptualized the issue.

Take care.

Your insults weaken your points

I didn't hear him say he wants to flat out remove so called assult weapons. I heard him ask, "Why does wnyone need this (assult rifle) when a pistol is what kills best for defense?" You want to answer?

He's stating the the second amemendment doesn't apply to black people.

If anything I am defending his constitutional rghts. I don't know him, and I gather, neither do you, so if your purpose on this thread is to expose me, there is nothing to expose but your own fears.


My insults merely accompany the illustrations and points I made. The fact that you dislike or disagree with one or both, notwithstanding.

What Farrakhan has said stands on its own.

What I have posted stands on its own.

What you have posted stands on its own and it shines brightly.

This issue has provided an excellent chalkboard for me to illustrate the fallacy of your belief that Farrakhan is and should be a liberty speaker.

It has provided an excellent opportunity to engage in some much needed and critically valuable 'compare & contrast', some blunt fact contrasted against wide-eyed false belief and faux-principles and provided the illustration as to the danger (as I see it) of some of you purported 'liberty-advocates' and what you/they insidiously bring to the table in the name of 'Liberty'.

Those who read can and will come to their own conclusions one way or the other, but there is no cover left available for you, me or anyone else, reference this subject and the larger issue.

Funny how that works, huh?

Say it isn't so

"some of you purported 'liberty-advocates' and what you/they insidiously bring to the table in the name of 'Liberty'."


I Wish...

...that I could 'say it isn't so', but alas and sadly, it is so. ;)

I love the fire you OathKeepers bring to the table.

Burn it down! lol

Patriot Cell #345,168
I don't respond to emails or pm's.
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution, inevitable.

Roger That


Quote please

I give you this and I don't see the word black:

“Look at the American peoples’ thoughts about Congress. What is the percentage of the American people that feel that the U.S. Congress is doing a good job. Eleven percent,” he said. “Then 89 percent of the American people are angry, disaffected, dissatisfied with their government — and you’re selling them weapons of war and the militias are multiplying.”

Can you please tell me where he is saying what you hear: "I see hom talking about the black condititon in a white world, where guns seems to be the right of whites only? He's telling black people that a gun makes you a target for the many layers of armed government." - Granger

He is speaking as leader of NOI a black communtiy

It's not the only black community.

Because he speaks as leader of the NOI, his foundation is being black.

The quote you gave is of him speaking about America in general, not his NOI.

Is he wrong about the American people being dissatisfied with government?

I need to go, work the soup kitchen, have appointments, so maybe, and hopefully, I will see you later ((((((((((bear))))))))).

Who is he talking about here?

http://stevescomments.wordpress.com/tag/louis-farrakhan-gun-... :
“See, the right to bear arms was given at a time when there was no regulated militia to protect America,” he said. “But now you have police well-armed, you have state troopers well armed, you have the National Guard and you have federal troops.” (Yes and the founders were against standing armies)

Farrakhan continued from there, claiming that “there is no need for the American people to be armed to the teeth if you have a responsible militia to protect the society of the United States.” He also noted his dismay over the number of weapons owned (his figure: 350 million) versus the number of Americans (nearly 314 million).
It is none of his business how many arms people have whether they be black people, white people, brown people. We are all people and we all have the right to bear arms. Not because the Constitution says so, but because it is an NATURAL GOD GIVEN RIGHT which is part of securing a free people and staying that way.


Baring arms is a God given right?

I'm sorry ((((((((bear)))))))) But what I'm reading in your article is hearsay, and I'm the first to admit, it's not easy to listen to three hours of LF, I guess if I was being paid to cherry pick and twist meanongs to provote difference and fear, I would be happier to listen.

I believe it's a natural right to defend one's self, and guns are but one means.

To LF, who appears to have armed men carryiong concealed weapons, and has suggested that gangs become miltas, I'm not seeing someone who is opposed to the second amendment, but rather how the second amendment is working aginst the black community.

Yes, it is a Natural God-given right, not government-given

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--" http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transc...

"Amendment II
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_tra...

The security of a FREE State = Liberty; therefore, the people shall keep and bear arms.

Liberty is a Creator endowed right.

I have been looking for LF sermon but cannot find it. I did find this small clip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MgTVuDZqsNE

I would like to hear it in context because surely I can see your point that he is speaking to the black community, but also about white militia. I am hoping to find the sermond and spent some time looking today.

Granger, the last thing I want to do is take someone out of context. Sorting this out is that important to me for Liberty's Sake.


It's not God given right

God gives commandments, like Thou shall not murder (or kill).

The constitution and bill of rights gave us rights to bare arms. The Patriot Act is the foundation of the new precidents being set on many local levels of government. What I'm understanding from LF is blacks have never had the second amendment, in that, if you are a black man, and you have a gun, then you become a target for the many layers of government regulated milita's that are designed to protect them, not black people.

You know bear.. LF has many followers like RP, and I see simularities, in that I see what LF is talking about, is what is now encroching on America, outside black America, especially on the youth, which is why RP makes a point to the youth and boomers like me feel kinda left out, but believe in the message of Liberty.

I think, that in the real world, if we ever meet a Muslim or a person who identifies with the NOI, we are kind and so are they.

If a Muslim was to openly join the rEVOLution, what would that mean?

LF is an individual, larger than life figure, who is ignored and shunned like Ron Paul, who not everybody agrees with RP 100% either. I'm get the feeling that some folks here are standing behind the second amendment to sheild their real objection to finding a place for the black community in the LM.

People here say they want truth. What's the truth about LF? Or what's the truth about the people who listen to him, because the only rights they ever saw were for some white guy? Isn't that what prison statistics show?

I appreciate that you don't want to take this out of context. I agree. That's why I complain about how long his vids are.. you have to listen to the whole thing to get the whole picture.. and that's hard. I know this, He's not talking to me personally. I think he would have to talk much differently to me because I am not from the black experience. I recently joined the GOP to restore the republic, and hopefully in doing that, end the government suppresion and elimination of the Bill of Rights and destruction, or coruption of the constitution, so that maybe this time, we will not have a civil war, but diplimacy and trade, respect where due and tolerance for what we disagree, but that we are all clear what our rights are and we succeeding in a government the protects those rights and enables us the freedom to protect ourselves, with guns, not nukes (that's another issue that needs to be dealt with).

You are a Danger to....

...Liberty, the Constitution and to any movement that desires to achieve liberty.

Your quote, one of a number that expose you:

*****"The constitution and bill of rights gave us rights to bare arms."*****

First off, it is 'bear' arms, not 'bare'. Learn the difference between the two words, for gods sake.

Secondly, the Constitution and its Bill of Rights did not 'give' this fundamental liberty to anyone.

The Bill of Rights merely acknowledged it and 'enumerated' it, in one context, along with a few other, of many, pre-existing natural rights.

AS I said in a previous post, you and Farrakhan seem to hold some of the same beliefs and you have and do continue to attempt to defend the indefensible.

You are a gun-controller and a liberty-fraud, and you, once again, display a grotesque and fundamental ignorance and/or non-belief/non-adherence to fundamental liberties...just...like...Farrakhan..

What a piece of work and how sad that so many are seemingly fooled by you.

bear is an animal

they did not give..liberty, they gave protection to liberty.

I think LF is way ahead of many in the LM.. I think it's a valid point and accept you don't agree.

I'm for background checks and certification.. that's a long ways from confiscating or controlling what and how many arms.


"Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

Bare means exposed (e.g., without clothes). For everything else, use bear.
Read more at http://www.grammar-monster.com/easily_confused/bare_bear.htm...

OK I'll use "bear"

I'm well aware of the second amendment, and all for the right to bear arms that are registered, and owners haves background checks and certification, to get a license.. because I believe it's important for insurance/loss, accidents and theft/crime.

And I'm sure Farrakhan is FOR the second Amendment, just pissed that it has never applied to the black man as anything but a tracking device and penelty that locks black men up for decades.

Used to be the black man with a gun is someone everyone was afraid of, now it's the looney with the gun, so if that's not you (and it coulkd be) then what's the beef?

Why all this bruhaha over LF and the second Amendment when it's obvious he's got armed guards around him.

As I Have Said...

...more than once, you are NOT for liberty, you are a collectivist to whatever degree.

As to all the hubbub about Farrakhan and Amendment II, as if you do not already know, it is because YOU advanced him as a speaker for the liberty movement and because YOU continue to defend his anti-constitution position on Amendment II and because YOU hold similar anti-constitution positions on firearms.

A 'right' that would require government permission (background check), government registration and government certification/licensing, is not a 'right' at all.

The fact that you believe so, speaks volumes about your underlying ethic and philosophy.

Your desired background checks, registration and certification are accompanied by the specter of denial or failure, which is an unconstitutional government prohibition and an infringement on what is textually an absolute prohibition on government from infringing upon.

Where does Amendment II authorize any of your collectivist-desires?

Since it clearly does not, we are left with YOU advocating, knowingly, against a fundamental liberty and against Amendment II itself along with its prohibition on government from doing exactly what you advocate.

You are faux, yet you are a perfect fit with the GOP and also as a representative of what passes for 'liberty' in Kalifornia and a goodly percentage of its purported 'liberty-advocates'.

Once again, you defend Farrakhan, which in the venue of Amendment II and the underlying fundamental liberty to keep and bear arms, is indefensible.

Your own collectivist-belief related to this fundamental, constitutionally-enumerated liberty is just as flawed and it seems to be directly akin to Louie's.

Go figure.

You continue to either be as ignorant as you present on this issue, or you are deliberately attempting to keep the focus on 'race' and historical oppression, rather than on the fundamental individual liberty at hand and your opposition to its exercise, free from government oppression.

I expect the latter is the case, since you seem to be attempting to use the former as cover for your anti-liberty beliefs.

You can try to dress that pig up an a snazzy tuxedo, give it a shave and a haircut, splash some good-smelling aftershave on it and take it to dinner, but when all is said and done, it is still a pig.

As I see it, you are naught but an insidious gerbil, busily gnawing away at the foundations of fundamental liberty from within and whilst posing as a liberty-champion and a restorer of the republic.

Personally, what you are and what you represent makes me puke-sick.

Just so you know.

Did you know?

DP has an ignor option. How about you put me on your ignor control and get well soon?

Um...No Thanks

I am well and focused at all times...particularly when a liberty-fraud is in need of exposure.

That would be you.

The more people like you that are exposed, the clearer it is how few there are who actually believe in Liberty.

You are to Liberty exactly like the neocons and compassionate-conservatives were to the old/traditional GOP...insidious, diluting, working a steady, sick change from within.

As an aside, you could take your own advice if it bothers you that much.....project much?

Granger, if your rights came from a piece of paper,

then your rights can be taken away with a piece of paper. Meave pointed that out to me when I was pretty new to the Daily Paul. It was part of my Liberty Education that I treasure. It makes all the difference in the world:


Submitted by Maeve on Tue, 06/12/2012 - 14:40. Permalink

"You can't vote a right away. Only privileges can be voted away. Your rights are given to you at birth by your Creator. You can relinquish them yourself by accepting the tyrannical decisions of our idiot Congress people, or you can assert them. Its your choice. Saying your rights are voted away is like allowing them to vote to amputate your right arm, and then letting them do just that."



With all due respect to my friend Maeve, I am having a hard time where "voting away your rights" come into play in our conversation about LF and the LM.

Government's job is to protect our rights, not us.

The Point is that the Rights that are Protected are NOT given

The Point is that the Rights that are Protected by the Government are NOT given by the government. Those rights are given by The Creator.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"

"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, "

You say: "Government's job is to protect our rights, not us."

You are wrong about that. The Government gets its power from the consent of the governed. Therefore ultimately we are responsible for ourselves and the government is responisble to us.

And THAT is why the RIGHT to bear arms SHALL NOT be infringed.


I don't agree with it and it's not how I see it

The creator does not give rights. The creator gives condititions that are beyond the natural abilities of human beings. The creator gives life, free will (Liberty), Church and Commandments (Pursuit of Happiness, because being close to our God is happiness). Our human conditition is OF the creator.

The declaration aknowledges there is a higher power, "unalienable" condition they transform into a "Right", so they can establish grounds as a government BY AND FOR we the people, with all due respect to that which is UNALIENABLE (nothing they can do about it).

LF will tell you that the constitution has never been implemented because slavery never ended, just changed from being for whites only. Seems to me, NOI would like to see constitutional government for ALL people, they are everyday people too.

"To secure these rights" means to PROTECT THE RIGHTS (unalienable condititions (RIGHTS)... this is telling us HOW unalienable rights will be protected. "Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just consent of the governed." It is not what rights are protected by government.

I stand that the government's job is to protect our rights, not us, and that's why the government needs to protects the people's right to bare arms and not infringe.

It seems the

And when the Government no longer protects then what?


You ADORE Jesus with ALL your heart and soul

and you live everyday best you can striving to be happy.


and the founders had in mind that the people would be armed which is necessary to maintain a free state. So when the state fails to secure rights it becomes rogue and that needs to be understood. When a rogue is loose, arms are for protection.

Bingo! Confirmation

You too are a gun-grabber and an apologist.

If you think his points related to the fundamental right to keep and bear arms, banning 'assault weapons', the militia, the role of government, our founding and Amendment II are anything but stupid and anti-liberty, well, you are what you are.

Regardless of who else sees it or not, you have exposed yourself, effectively.

It is what it is.