-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.


Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

It's the third amendment

More insults and false accusations because you really haven't got an argument.


...all I am doing is presenting blunt, bottom-line illustrations that clearly show YOU taking the position opposite to Liberty, Amendment II and the RKBA.

You and 'Liberty-Lovin Louie' make a fine pair, you seem to believe much the same, by your own commentary.

Granger, the gift that keeps on giving.

You are assessed as faux.


All you're doing is spinning a web and looking like a spider.


...that none of your diversions or attempts will change a damn thing that you have posted.

You'd best get to deleting to remove the evidence.


I'm not going to delete a thing!

I agree with Lt496

I agree with Lt496; Granger seems to have very little sense about her. Most posts I see from her are in support of something dubious.

It should be clear from what has been said, that Farrakhan is not right for the liberty movement. It is very difficult for me to conceive of a reason that Granger would continue this line of inquiry, beyond her own ego.

LOL more insults

What has been said is that most people have no clue about him but hearsay and he scares them, so it's like he's the boogieman and charges are trumped up because of vids taken out of context.

My point remains, if you can not be diplomatic and trade with fellow Americans is restoring the constitution, how does anyone expect to be diplomatic and trade with anyone globally?

Liberty Movement is bigger than Ron Paul, eh?

Granger, have a look at this.


Granger, the only insult here is yours, to everyone's intelligence. Louis Farrakhan is a possible friend to the liberty movement in the same way as Bill Ayers.

The liberty movement will never encompass all people, and you need to understand this. Some people feel slighted; they don't want liberty, they want revenge.

I would bet that everyone slamming Farrakahn did NOT watch...

...all 2.5 hours of his speech which Granger posted in the original post.

Well, I did.

And I'm a white guy in case you wondered.

You have to realize, Farrakhan often speaks in parables and analgies.

And when he tells truths, it shocks people because remember, "Truth is treason in the empire of lies."

Then someone posted excerpts from another speech about the "White Devil."

But when he says "kill the white man" you have to TAKE IT IN CONTEXT. Because he goes on to explain that what he means is the idea of WHITE SUPREMACY.

He said it has nothing to do with skin color or being white. But it has everything to do with what is in the mind of the white supremacist.

I understand this. Why can't others see this? Because they don't want to hear it.

I'm a Christian, but I would feel perfectly fine watching Farrakahn speak in person.

He's advocating killing racist IDEAS. Not actual murder.

So before you condemn him right and left, spend some actual time watching his entire speeches - not little tidbits taken out of context to shock people.

They did that with Reverand Wright as well. But I never heard Wright say an untruth.

Keep Farrakhan's words in context and they will start to make sense to you.

By the way, Farrakhan often refers to Christ and the message He brought to the world as well.

"We have allowed our nation to be over-taxed, over-regulated, and overrun by bureaucrats. The founders would be ashamed of us for what we are putting up with."
-Ron Paul

White man was a made man from "Yew?"

This is another edited vid that is made to insult and offend, if not fear white people. To me, when he says, "White man's mind", he's talking about the corruption. He says, it's not a skin color issue. It's a mind issue. So there can be blacks and broens that have a "white man's mind", and this is what he wants ended, and so does the liberty movement, just not in those words.

I'm not seeing revenge, but a passionate chagre for liberty from oppression.

It is not my intent to insult anyone. I know less about LF than anyone here, I'm sure. I'm merely looking at him, for my first time, with objection. That makes the rejection based on clips hard to accept beyond face value.

So Louis Farrakhan

So Louis Farrakhan characterizes white minds as corrupt, and you accept this characterization and agree?

Isn't this website dedicated to the constitution, a decidedly European document? I guess you suppose the Founding Fathers, and Thomas Jefferson had brown or black minds? Is Ron Paul black on the inside?

Much less being a missing liberty speaker, after just a little exposure to Farrakhan, you are already spewing his black supremacist nonsense, and you don't even notice it.

I accept it as his perception

And I think when it's applied to politics, MSM and what's happening to our government and corproations with mass corruption.. I understand him saying that white and black in not about skin color.

He stated it's not about skin color because as race homgenizes a bolack person could have a white mind and a white person could have a black mind.

You're right, I didn't nitice that I was spewing his black supremeist nonsense because that's not the message I heard. I accept your perception, just as I accept his.

Since You...

...seem to dodge the facts about 'Liberty-Lovin Louie' and his clear stance on the fundamental right to keep and bear arms enumerated in Amendment II and the Amendment itself (and it ain't about 'defense', it is about the ability to throw off tyranny), perhaps you can make a clear declaration about your own beliefs on the fundamental right, eh?

Do you believe that the government can control, restrict, regulate, permit and/or categorize, people or guns, in the type, caliber, capability, capacity, access to own possess or purchase, in the time, the place, the manner or the ability for people to keep and bear arms.......you know, 'infringe' upon an individuals fundamental right?

Just curious, because I am getting a distinct inkling here.

I missed this post

You and I do not agree on Liberty Lovin Lousie's position.

Yes, I believe the government does control, restrict, regulate, permit and or categorize, people an guns, in type, caliber, capability, capacity, access to possess or purchase, in the time, the place, the manner or the ability for people to keep and bare arms. You do not have the right to a nuke.

The thing with nuclear...

... weapons and other WMDs is that they really aren't usable in defense against tyranny without inflicting mass casualties, which takes away the rights of Life and Liberty of innocents in the process. (Honestly, I believe that governments should not even have nuclear weapons and that they are immoral to use; but that genie is out of the bottle, and unfortunately they seem to be a necessary deterrent at this point.)

When it comes to military-style 'assault' rifles, that is a different story altogether. Those weapons could indeed be used effectively in a resistance against tyranny, in a targeted fashion, similar to the asymmetric warfare the colonists had to engage in against the redcoats. They do not carry with them the automatic death sentence for innocents that something like a nuke would involve. The effort to ban these types of small arms or to limit their magazine sizes is an assault on the capability of the citizens to--God forbid--have to defend themselves like their forebears did.

By the way, I am open to hearing where Farrakhan's views intersect with Liberty, despite my misgivings.

I agree with you first paragraph

I'm not for banning any guns, I do believe people should have a background check and certified and the guns should be certifed, but what make or how many.. that's up to the individual, not the govenrment.

Farrakhan isn't easy to listen to.. on one hand he's interesting because he knows how to knit stories to gether into a big story, but after a couple of hours.. I think he's got a job to do, instead of sending angry black people to Liberia, they let LF establish a NOI, and he's mad as hell.. the suppression and oppression on a nation, un America, this is a shame, and I think there are common grounds between the groups, which it would be better to respectfully work together than ignor each other in the good fight for liberty.

What in the...

...second paragraph did you not agree with?

I didn't not agree with it

I commented further on it that simply say I agree. I agree with it.

Ah, ok :)

Thanks for clarifying.

Who Brought Up a Nuke?

Well, gee whiz, it was you.

How about we simply hear your position on whether you agree with and/or support 'background checks', age prohibitions, 'mental health' prohibitions and/or restrictions, prior felon prohibitions, domestic violence prohibitions and other such infringements?

Then we can move on to your positions and beliefs related to 'arms' that are provided to individual troops, just to keep it clean. That would include semi-auto and fully automatic rifles in a variety of calibers, grenades, all sorts of handguns and other tools of the individual troop's trade.

Perhaps that will keep you from running that old, tired, overused 'nuke' strawman up the flagpole, eh?

The questions was not IF the government infringes. They do.

The question was what is YOUR position and belief on it. I suspect you have an established track record on these things.

Prooves I believe in regulation, certification, etc.

I'm not opposed to back ground checks for registration, and I also believe in certification, as I believe a person should know the difference between a glock and a double barrel pistol.

I oppose the prohibitions.

RE: individual troops: Peter Camejo comes to mind.. he was drafted for Nam. He didn't want to go, so when he reported for duty, he read the papers and refused to sign the one that says it releases all responsibilty of the company who weapons the troop will use.

The captain came out and asked him why he wouldn't sign, and he explained, I will put my life on the line for my country, but not for a corporation. He was released from duty.

It also reminds me of my uncle.. many of the weapons on the wall at his AFL are a great collection he developed on his three tours in Nam as SOAR and many trips back to find MIA and POW. Maybe some troop today will do that for their AFL?

Gun-Controller & Statist (in this instance)

That is you and yet you purport to represent Liberty.

You are for background checks: **Infringement**

You are for "registration": **Infringement AND prelude to confiscation**

You are for "Certification": **Infringement AND (I must assume) gov't mandated training and approval**

Now to the meat and taters....You opposes WHAT prohibitions?

Prohibitions on full-autos...one prior felons...someone who supposedly committed 'an act' of 'domestic violence' at some point...on someone who someone else put out an order of protection on...on 'mentally disturbed'...on so called assault weapons...on carrying in certain places by certain people and with certain weapons??????

I note with great interest that you dodged these issues and, rather, diverted onto an utterly non-relevant 'story' about someone and then diverted to another completely non-relevant 'story' about a relative of yours and some gun collection.

Fact....if you SUPPORT background checks, you must SUPPORT the intended result of those background checks, which is a PROHIBITION by government from being 'allowed' by that government to buy, own or carry that firearm....that is a prohibition that you support, yet you say you do not support prohibitions.

If your 'registration' scheme were to be implemented, then subsequently 'the state' decided something so registered was no longer to be 'allowed' by 'the state', then confiscation and/or criminal sanction would result for those' on the list'. That means you support future prohibition.

If your 'state' sponsored or mandated 'certification' were not complied with or not satisfactorily passed, 'the state' would deny you, aka 'prohibit' you the ability to buy or keep and bear the arms.

Funny how gun-controllers are easily unmasked 'if' one can hold them down whilst they desperately twist, squirm and try to slither away from the bottom-line of things, particularly when that squirmer is a purported liberty advocate.

Appreciate the deliberately limited response, it still revealed much.

You go on and LOL, or (((((.))))) or LMAO or something, now.

Yes, I'm for background checks

To me, a gun is a tool and a person should have had training about how to care and operate that tool (And it's OK for that person who trained them to be a family member). Background checks are required to work at a church, or with children, or the elderly.. a resume is offering up a background check from your perspective.. so I don't see back ground checks as infringement.

It doesn't have to be government certification, as there should be many certification organizations, that certificate (could be a letter written by a parent) would enable a person a license to own.. we already do this.. Frankly, I think EVERYONE who thinks of going into the woods or nature trail hikes, should take a hunter saftey class. I have learned a lot in all my classes.

I'm opposed to prohibitons because like my Uncle's arsenal hanging on the walls of the AFL, two pistols is the most one can grab, and when it comes to the more powerful machines, the opportunity to use them renders them into museum artifacts.

Mentally disturbed.. I have a lot to say about this subject, because to me, this gun issue is a red herring. The real issue behind the gun issue is "the looney with the gun". This is a very dangerous game. http://www.dailypaul.com/275677/looney-with-a-gun

In my county, where the majority are pro-second amendment, backgroud checks are not for prohibition, but so there is a record on file to help with theft and id of murder weapon.

Cyril's picture

As of today: Dr. Ron Paul is my father in liberty.

As of today:

Dr. Ron Paul is my father in liberty.

TMOT is my brother in liberty. Michael Nystrom, our delightful host on here, is my brother in liberty. Adam Kokesh with his loud eloquence also is my brother in liberty. Alex Jones is another brother in liberty of mine. So are many DPers on here also.

I could try to name all or a few, but I don't want to hurt those I would forget or omit.

For, ALL of these HAVE PASSED THE TEST of MY LIBERTY RADAR - that is YOUR Bill of Rights, that I cherish dearly, young and genuine American People.

As for Louis Farrakhan, I am not quite sure, yet...


"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.


"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

Why are You Not Sure Yet?

Louie has openly opposed Amendment II and displayed incredible constitutional-stupidity reference its enumeration, the milita, the role of government and a plethora of other things, along with a collectivist ethic.

Here is a tid-bit that may assist you in discerning this.


Some of the people in this thread who call for him to become a part of 'the liberty movement' and become a spokesman for liberty, are frankly not only insane, but their ethic, philosophy and liberty-integrity, are null & void.


I don't hear him openly oppose the second amendment

I hear him asking why the arms race has hit American despite than many layers of government regulated milita, and that the people are so angry with government, that government is bringing on calls for seperation and civil war.


More self-exposure by you.

You are either in agreement with his anti Amendment II, anti fundamental liberty to keep and bear arms blatherings, or you are as dumb as he came across.

I choose door #1, you seem to be a garden-variety Kaliformia-style gun-control proponent, masquerading as a liberty advocate.


I haven't seen enough to tell me he's anti constitution, or anti-fundamental liberty.. seems to me he wants them both, and his complaint is, he's never had them. He's saying, if your black and have a gun, you're going to jail. Being prisons are a majority of people of color, what he's saying could be true. I haven't seen enough when it comes to actually understanding.. he's very long winded and speaks in parables.. loops into story after the next.. wraps them together in very clever patterns..

Choose whatever door or amendment you like, suit yourself. Do what YOU want. Insult me as if that's winning a debate.. it's how you who exposes yourself. I'm all for the constitution and bill of rights, not just some amendments over others. Personally, if I had the power, I would not move to disarm you and don't agree with the government using arms threats as a means to destroy the rest of the constitution.

Cyril's picture

Thanks, I hadn't seen this.

Thanks, I hadn't seen this.

Yes, that helps see how his mind really works. Busted.

Topic closed.

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.


"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

You Are Welcome

Glad it shined light on the issue for you.

Take care.