51 votes

Video Update: Rand Paul's Speech @ Howard University

Thanks to AnCapMercenary for the videos:


MSNBC's take:



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

At 11:46 in the

video of the speech - what was the disturbance/clapping about?

When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign: that the dunces are all in confederacy against him. ~J. Swift

Great job

He was certainly awkward, but I would have been to. 95% of that audience voted for Barry. That has to be a little intimidating..

He was sincere though and thats really what matters.

As far as MSNBC goes, screw them. Im thankful I do not own a television.

'Peace is a powerful message.' Ron Paul

Towing the party line

If he is too republican for me then he will definitely be too republican for ALMOST ALL of the minorities who are still asleep. All he would have had to do was mention more of the corruption on both sides, but no, he decides to tow the republican line. Not just what might be the future liberty minded party line.... but THE ENTIRE REPUBLICAN PARTY LINE. When he said that the republican party has always been about protecting the rights of individuals, guess what every person in that building imagined in their head? They all saw the faces of Rudy Guiliani, Mccain,and Bush. Patriot Act anyone?

This entire speech Rand made sure of two things: 1. He would not offend anyone in the crowd and 2. He would not offend his GOP establishment masters.

I think Rand impressed many

I think Rand impressed many with that speech.

They brought up the newsletter!!!!!!!!

What a sack of hacks!

MSDNC: Lean Forward to a more wretched hive of scum and villanry.

"First rule of Government Spending: Why build one when you can have 2 at twice the price?"
-S.R. Hadden

here we go: MORE smear from MSDNC...Al Sharpton edition

"Rand Paul. Historically INACCURATE Speech At Howard?? Al Sharpton Thinks So"


and the requisite college heckler:


and the requisite MSM gaggle w/college 'protesters':


by my guess, about 30~40% of the initial Q&A queries were from 'think tanks'/NGO/astroturf policy wonk/'community activism' group hacks.

For once, I'd LOVE to see 100% organic, truly intelligent, truly apropos and serious, non-NGO influenced, non-Delphi-techniqued, non-manufactured consent questions at one of these things. Seriously, in the age of the internet, shouldn't I expect more intelligent questions from a sea of political science majors, no matter how brainwashed they themselves are??

Predictions in due Time...

"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy." - Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul

I don't take my cues from Al

I don't take my cues from Al $harpton.

"First rule of Government Spending: Why build one when you can have 2 at twice the price?"
-S.R. Hadden

He can't even get Rand's name right

1:40......Ron Paul

People Who Live In Glass Houses...

....Shouldn't throw stones. Unabashed and unashamed racial ambulance chaser extraordinaire, Rev. Al "Tawana Brawley" Sharpton at it again.


Ed Rombach

Well, y'all knew it was coming: MADCOW's smear response

vs. Rand's AWESOME speech & completely free-wheeling Q&A at Howard U:


Lest some of y'all forget, her entire adult career was based on the fact that her illustrious Oxford Scholarship was funded by one of the most racist colonialist to have ever lived: Cecil Rhodes, her entire life is funded by salary checks from GE, the 51% owner of Comcast-MSDNC, who makes living off of the war machine and bomber engines, and missile and guidance components, oh yeah, while poisoning the Hudson River, Fed bailouts, corporatist contracts, corporatist fascist energy operations, yet she has the gall to talk about hypocrisy and feigning indignance over nuances that she CLEARLY intellectually 'gets' (hey even that lady from MSDNC Bashir's segment from Grio knew to distinguish that as she repeatedly stated "...well in libertarian circles"), but intentionally Machiavellianly spins and omits to simply call property rights, state's rights, individual rights, as racist.

What a F'ng ....!!!

This is the most disgusting malicious sociopath even by LINO 'standards.'

MADCOW wholly disgusts me, even more, because her recent book
"Drift" was even featured on DP frontpage!!!
, as IF she were actually sincere in her overtures to anti-war, peace coalition contingent, when she literally works FOR the warmachine, only critique the regime from a safe confines of an 'immunity box'; she cheers on the warmachine by seemingly obsessing over 'details' for the gullible on red herring issues. And even when she finally covers 'important issues,' what good is it when it's all passed? Like got Syria? Yemen? Torture? AfPak, much??

It's like, WHO THE FCUK CARES if she pretends to care AFTER enough body count has been amassed, all the while cheering on from the sidelines???

She is the most despicable among MSDNC creatures. It's high time, for those who actually occasionally fall under her spell, make no mistake: she's NOT 'coming around' on anything.

She is the worst among them, because like oBUSHma, while it's obvious to anyone paying attention, but to most sheeple, she's a 'sophisticated' and subtle propagandist who you almost forget she's lying to you, with deftness. She is the most dangerous type of political assassins and MSM mouthpiece for the Ruling Class.

Want more? I did a whole spiel when her book Drift was featured on FrontPage here awhile back. If you're not familiar with her real background, research her deeper.


I know of her because I followed her from her days as a sidekick nobody with a simple pedigree as the agreeable gay Rhodes Scholar on the fully CIA operation: Air America Radio.

Just remember, it's MADCOW who DESTOYED the Ron Paul R3VOLution to Anti-War left coalition from growing when she maligned Rand ON THE NIGHT of his primary victory: I literally would not be surprised if she actually in fact IS CIA.

MADCOW always knew about Dr. Paul's 'newsletters' controversy, but all those yrs of interviewing him on and off on cordial terms, she NEVER ONCE brought up 'her issues' with Ron on the newsletters, nor the nuances of Civil Rights Act? Oh really? Anyone who actually thinks she 'just' found out about it, when Rand won the primary is truly delusional. She has an entire media research team, and frankly if any of us can parse and discern truth from propaganda with a few mere keystrokes, how hard does it have to be for a bunch of delusional political science major gnomes working for her who are plugged into LexisNexis with MSDNC's rather deep pockets??

The ONLY reason why she held off on 'reporting' on the newletters was to time it: she built rapport with Dr. Paul the elder over the years as one of the most friendliest of all MSM hosts amenable to entertaining his 'quaint ideas' on peace, freedom, and economic prosperity. That is why Rand even had a platform to speak to liberals on his primary win night, so much so, he announced his intent to run as a senator on MADCOW's show, along with being maneuvered into putting having his entire campaign destroyed before even it had a chance to take off, post-primary win, ON the SAME show!

Anyone not see the obviousness of what she did? Even among some of us, they're so genuinely sincere that they often mistake willful malice, as unintentional, or stupidity. Make no mistake, MSM 'liberal' media operators are NOT your run of the mill mindless statist drones: they're sophisticated malicious political propagandists. Not stupidity, Willful Malice. Just be mindful of that.

This is why any remote facsimile of her visage even when skimming through headlines turns my stomach.

Why I hate her more than anyone on MSM is precisely because she really sucks in the worst of among the gullible sheeple: the latte sipping hipster wannabes, delusional soccer moms, and grannies who get their 'alternative' kicks by watching 'news' from someone in the LGBT community and makes them feel smarter by proxy because their willful propaganda is coming from the mouth of a Rhodes Scholar.

People like her are literally destroying the Republic and society as awhole; when your entire non-first person reality is being informed by lies all day, with parallel history of those who bother to find out reality vs. those who still live under the delusion that modern MSM have honest intentions of telling the truth, you become a willful or unintentional useful idiot participant in destruction of your own society. And it's only accelerating.

And in case y'all needed any proof that MSDNC is a 100% propaganda arm, a recent media study concluded that indeed, MSDNC outfoxed even Faux'News': EIGHTY FIVE PERCENT of their broadcast is pure opinion, not news!!!


Read it. Remember it.

Predictions in due Time...

"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy." - Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul

She would have done the same

She would have done the same thing to Ron if he actually had a shot at winning. She was pro-Ron and she's just reaching for material here. It wasn't that big of a "burial" in fact I think the white people may get behind Rand for this kind of stuff. I love black people, but Obama being a terrible President won't help black people right now just like Jeb Bush would have gotten smashed if he ran right after W was out.

yes, she would've done the same w/Ron, but make no mistake

she was NEVER "pro-Ron," that's my whole pt.

If you tracked her career as I have, since 2003 and up, since her Air America Radio days, and knew the way she's been engaging Ron, it's no accident that she chose to pull the 'race'card on Rand on the night of his primary win, after yrs of knowing about the newsletter never once asking Ron on air about it, having built rapport for yrs to the point that a conservative christian libertarian constitutionalist son of Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul running to become the junior senator of the reddest of 'red states' geographically slightly above Bible-belt Kentucky, would announce his run, not even on the RINO neoCon Hannity, O' Reilly, or even the resident token RINO at MSDNC, Joe Scarborough, but on the only openly gay host in MSM, on the LINO 'liberal' NWO-Rhodes Scholar's show?

Uh, no.

Like I said, it's malice, not unintentional stupidity, or sincerity. These are malicious political assassins. There's no accident, there's no 'coming around.' If you see any of the links or youtubes I provided in http://www.dailypaul.com/comment/2335231 you'll clearly see what I'm talking about.

If not, c'est la vie. but won't change the reality of how MADCOW operates.

Predictions in due Time...

"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy." - Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul

SteveMT's picture

These kind of attacks are expected.

It's the silence that may come from the so-called Constitutionalist talking-heads out there that will have the last word on this speech. They command the big audiences. I believe that only Hannity (ironically enough) had the only interview with Rand about this speech. The others we'll see about.

I'm pro Ron through and through...

...but holy shit, Rand is just sooooo much better at speaking than Ron is. This is the sort of thing that makes me believe Rand can be president. Marco Rubio wouldn't have been able to handle those questions like Rand.

Free market capitalism isn't right for America because it works better. It's right because it's free (and it works better).

SteveMT's picture

A+ for effort and an A for delivery.

This took some guts. There is no doubt that Rand Paul can talk. He's already proven that with his filibuster. With only two breaks for polite applause, Rand packed this speech with information and points for the audience to ponder. The results of this effort maybe meager, but at least this is a starting point to reach out to every part of this nation. Question: Was Rand actually invited to speak by Howard U? Did Howard U request that Rand Paul speak to them? I mean how else does one give a speech at a university without an invitation? Why would they specifically want Rand Paul there is the point I'm trying to make. They are the ones who want to know more about libertarian viewpoints. In other words, there is hope here.

i like that the nation of

i like that the nation of islam was represented.
nice two questions as well.


The more I see Senator Paul, the more I think he will become president. Like him or not (I love him) he handles everything with the demeanor and capacity of a POTUS. Even the most ridiculous or difficult attacking questions were answered with politeness and directness. He never lost control of the room.

www.standardexcellence.net - Bringing you Oklahoma, Texas and national news & opinion that matters for liberty.

not bad

he's no ron paul but he is our country's last hope.

Official Daily Paul BTC address: 16oZXSGAcDrSbZeBnSu84w5UWwbLtZsBms
Rand Paul 2016


"Liberty is rising, even in the midst of tyranny" ~ "E"

I lived in Baltimore when

Mayor Shmoke (the guy who introduced Rand) was mayor.
Rampant corruption -- black appointees putting friends and family on bogus payrolls -- free parking -- benefits -- etc.

Outright theft from municipal budgets -- numerous phoney vendor company fronts billing schools for phantom goods and services.

Raw brutality against innocent school kids sentenced to rat infested schools -- but the unions got their's.

My attitude is fuck 'em.

Let them learn what Obama's third world dictatorship vision feels like.

Ignorance always has a cost. And these arrogant dummies need to pay-up.

Economics effects everyone

If America becomes "third world" then it will affect us all. There will be no escaping unless you were to emigrate.

Really? There will be no escaping unless you were to emigrate.

Don't believe every doomsday email you read.

The crazier things get the more opportunities there are for those who can see them.

Who is "them"???


Them are

those who blindly insist Obama is "...doin' a excellent job, ya'll have no idea".

Did you think "them" meant black people?

I'm a 62 y.o. Sicilian bigot. But I have a black grand daughter (my first grand child)who I love. She is a talented scholar and athlete. She's also beautiful. She was attending college summer classes when she was still in elementary school.

Civil rights act of 1964 undermined the concept of liberty, and

destroyed the principle of private property and private choices. If you try to improve relationships by forcing and telling people what they can't do, and you ignore and undermine the principles of liberty, then the government can come into our bedrooms. And that's exactly what has happened. Look at what's happened with the PATRIOT Act. They can come into our houses, our bedrooms our businesses ... And it was started back then. the civil rights act of 1964 repealed the notorious Jim Crow laws, which forced racial segregation, but it is the government, not the people, that causes racial tensions by passing overreaching laws that institutionalize slavery and segregation. Today's race problems, result from the war on drugs, the flawed U.S. court system and the military. The real problem we face today is the discrimination in our court system, the war on drugs. Just think of how biased that is against the minorities. They go into prison much way out of proportion to their numbers. They get the death penalty out of proportion with their numbers. And if you look at what minorities suffer in ordinary wars, whether there's a draft or no draft, they suffer much out of proposition. So those are the kind of discrimination that have to be dealt with, but you don't ever want to undermine the principle of private property and private choices in order to solve some of these problems.


half way through the first

What I like is Howard is so real and they are definately giving Rand a reality wake up.. so yeah, this is great, keeps Rand real.

I was in a graduate class

and we were discussing race relations. My position is that we don't talk about race as much as we should, because, more or less, we've been taught not to discuss race. We were also talking about property rights and whether or not businesses had the right to refuse service, which most of my colleagues thought was a bad idea.

I gave two examples.

A new restaurant opens in town, and my son and I decide to try it. The food is good and the prices are reasonable. Over the years, we eat lunches and dinners in this restaurant even getting to know the owner. What we didn't know was once a month the Klu Klux Klan held its meetings in this businesses owner's back room. Would we have frequented the restaurant if we had this information? No, we wouldn't. Yet, because we didn't have this information we spent money in this establishment, keeping the owner in business.

In the second example, we choose to have lunch in a new restaurant in town. As we walk to the entrance, there is a sign on the door that states, "blacks not served here." Would we have lunch there? No, we wouldn't. At least in this example, the racism is up front and people can make a decision as to whether or not they want to have lunch in this restaurant or be part of putting this restaurant out of business.

He did mention government enabled racism

Go back and listen again

the epa was bad from the start and it taxes buisnesses and

descends on them like an army of loctuses and has been doing this since it was created and started doing this when it was created. And it gives business an incentive to pollute by selling the companies permits to pollute that the companies then sell on the market and has been doing this since it was created. it is not a recent thing. the problem with pollution is big buisness in bed with big goverment at a local and national level where the goverment gives big buisness the permission to pollute is what caused all the pollution of the industrial revolution. The air was clean the same year the epa was created before they did the clean air act and the epa took credit for it when it had nothing to do with them.


That was good

Rand Paul is a bit boring for giving speeches. He leaves it up to the listener to glean the salient points, which is good for showing he's not simply trying to sell something, but at the same time he can lose the engagement of the audience a bit I think. That may be why some walked out early.

In the Q&A at the end though he did extremely well. That was more engaging.

If he would have shortened his speech to maybe 5 minutes of outlining his views and his purpose there, then went into Q&A I think more of the audience would have stayed.