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.

A boring politician

Hey now, I think I'd like to see some more boring politicians. Too many of them keep doing stupid things and getting in trouble!

But you're right, about the 5 minute speech. Maybe not 5, but 10-15 to keep it concise and more powerful. I saw Dr. Ron Paul in Texas last year. He spoke for 45 minutes in the state convention, then for about 10 minutes that night. The 10 minute would have been perfect for winning new supporters.

Here's the 10-minute: http://youtu.be/VOpMVN-wP6s

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


Nice try, but fail.

He seemed to spend most of his time trying to convince a black audience to keep an open mind to republicans because of things that republicans over 100 years ago. It all sounded very fake. Maybe that's why he's a better politician than his father (and don't get me wrong, I do love Rand). His dad always seemed to be speaking off the cuff, genuinely telling you what he felt. Rand seemed to be trying to hit punchlines in a speech.

It appeared awkward when he tried to reference the name of an elected black politician and and blanked on it. When he was asked about the "two republican parties," he had a great opening to discuss how he's not trying to campaign for republicans but rather campaign for liberty (remember Ron Paul on Fox News after the debate telling Hannity et al that he's not running for "head of the Republican Party"?). Instead, he resorted to a bunch of BS blame game tactics talking about how bad democrats used to be towards black people. Really? The best defense you have of your ideas is to reference the crimes of politicians long dead over 100 years ago? How about reiterating your point about GOVERNMENT being the entity that repressed black people as an argument against increasing government?

I think it's unfortunate but, personally, he did himself and anyone associated with him a disservice. That is merely this one man's humble but objective opinion. I give him a ton of credit for trying to approach a demographic previously marginalized by and currently hostile to his party in a different way. When I started watching I thought "Ah, here is the way to do it. Reach out to group of college kids who happen to be at a predominantly black school... after all, at an institution of higher learning, you're likely to confront an audience that has no need for patronizing and pandering but only an objective dissertation of facts and logic." What does he do? He plays a weird game of 'which party has screwed you more' interspersed with some good points about the liberty movement.

...and begin the downvoting!

Unlearning and self-teaching since 2008. Thanks, Dr. Paul!

I upvoted you but still disagree

I spend way too much time both arguing with friends and strangers who are in a relentless anti-GOP circlejerk regarding everything he addressed, and I thought Rand did better than I have ever done.

I love Ron Paul, but there are millions of people who truly (but wrongly) believe that Ron's beliefs are based in raw racism. I did not think Rand was patronizing or being excessively partisan. The hardcore libertarian junkies are well aware that liberty transcends partisanship, but he taught some important history lessons regarding the GOP. Was he referencing incidents from decades ago? Yes. But pretty much all the worst policies today are decades old.

Hell most of the issues we are battling today started during Woodrow Wilson's term.


Part of the problem is that it's near impossible for a politician to be successful and truthful simultaneously. I would have loved to see him get up there and take the appropriate shots at the republican party, perhaps even say something like "I am a republican because in order to get elected, a candidate must be one or the other and I don't agree with the following anti-Liberty policies of the democrats; I am working to change the following anti-Liberty policies espoused by republicans."
Anyway, I just can't imagine that anyone who was unsure about Rand Paul walked away from that speech with a much improved point of view. The sentiment seems evident when considering the difference between he fairly muted responses to his punchlines and the more pronounced reception to the challenging questions (many of which he did not handle very well, IMHO, until the very end).

Unlearning and self-teaching since 2008. Thanks, Dr. Paul!


I think you're exactly right.

Rand Paul's approach appeared to be to convince his audience to give the Republican Party a favorable view because it has done favorable things for blacks in history.

However, I think a BETTER approach would have been to say he is for liberty first and party second, and explain how liberty is best for all individuals regardless of ethnicity.

Like Ron Paul always says freedom is popular. I think Rand Paul could have done better trying to make a libertarian case, instead of a party based one.

It's a fine line he was trying to walk

I think this was a fair assessment as well but Rand is playing a different game than Ron. You're right a better approach from a liberty standpoint is what you suggest, saying he is for liberty first and party second and explaining how liberty is best for all individuals regardless of ethnicity. However take a step back. What is Rand doing here? This is clearly a presidential move. He's not just trying to educate and reach across to differing ideologies and voting blocks he is also in the middle of the republican national tryouts for the presidential nomination. The competition is fierce and he can't be seen as an outsider. The party is watching closely to see who will emerge to represent them. If they see Rand go out and totally ditch and diss the party, he's done in their eyes. But if he doesnt say anything he loses his audience because he and they both know the republicans have some serious problems. So it's tough.

I think Rand balanced the requisite amount of cheer leading for the party with acknowledging its flaws and explaining how he is different and his philosophy is different. Could have been better I agree, but a solid 8/10.

As a matter of fact...

Maybe the way to look at this is not as a speech to a predominantly black college audience but as a speech to the GOP establishment demonstrating how the message of Liberty bridges recent historical racial divides among the parties. I suppose if you compare and contrast this speech with several of the attempts of republican presidential candidates to meet with the NAACP, whether or not Rand was able to convince any of his direct audience his speech certainly plays better.
I think that's what you were saying, and in that regard, then I would deem this speech a success. I'm sure that TPTB in the republican party were pleasantly surprised to see something other than a stodgy white guy pretend to be "just a little cooler" than he usually is while standing in front of a room full of NAACP members. I've never understood why people give those speeches; there always seems to be a subliminal message in the video saying "these people will never vote for this person but at least he tried."

Unlearning and self-teaching since 2008. Thanks, Dr. Paul!

Senator Paul Rocks!

The beginning of a conversation with Black youth at Howard University is the beginning of the end of the dominance and division tactics of the Democratic party. An open and honest conversation will go a lot further than the pandering tactics proposed by the Republican party leadership.

Stop trying to buy their votes. Ask them to join our cause for the sake of Liberty for themselves and their posterity!

Well done Rand

I read many a comment section before this like that of the Huffington Post that were champing at the bit to skewer him on this speech. They made all kinds of fallacious straw man arguments about him and his "supposed" positions to viciously practice on. Despite what they envisioned happening he did well and probably changed a few minds about him.

With this speech whether the audience agreed with a lot of what he had to say or not, (and I think many did agree, even if reluctantly) I think more than anything he changed their perception of who he is and what brand of republicanism he represents. It's not the same that most are familiar with and loathe. He's not some cartoon caricature of a stereotypical incompetent intolerant ignorant villainous republican they love to hate. He came across as an intelligent, pragmatic, real person, not some fake, stiff, plastic out of touch would be dictator like some other republicans. He showed them a different side. He showed what Republicanism used to stand for, and should stand for, and the kind which he will be championing going forward and that there was an alternative to the Democrat monopoly on their vote.

It was a very tricky tight rope walk between stating his principles and beliefs about government to a not so sympathetic crowd while also not totally dismissing or denigrating opposing views and concerns. He was there to show what his philosophy has to offer and promote understanding not so much to be confrontational and disagreeable. He was successful in this regard. Also while on that tight rope he had to balance knowing that his party and leadership would be watching his every word and move at Howard. He stuck up for the republican party and was careful not throw it completely under the bus for their egregious offenses, incompetence and buffoonery of recent years, earning him credit with the party and leadership, while still being able to point out and recognize many instances where the party has failed and needs to improve earning credit with his audience.

A very nuanced non confrontational approach that was safe but still impactful on various levels. I believe many from the left who may have been in opposition with Rand previously will be left with a different opinion of him and what he represents. Will they continue to distrust and malign Republicans, most likely and I dont blame them, but I think they will see Rand as a different breed and may be more disposed to hear him and those like him out. He's at least honest and straight forward about what he believes and why. Sometimes his answers arent exactly clear cut and dry, they leave much wiggle room, but they are sincere and not just answers to shmooze you over. He's very real and pragmatic about it while still trying to honor the ideal behind it.

I hope he continues to do more of these speeches. The great thing about liberty is that it is unafraid to go anywhere. That's why Ron could go to just about any university whether liberal of conservative and be well received. Your run of the mill republican statist can't do that. They'd be run out on a rail going to places like Howard or Berkeley. Why? because like Rand said, he wants to let them write their own book, whereas most republican statists want to write it for them and in their view against them. The latter is threating and unwelcome the former is refreshing, inviting, inspiring but challenging because it requires you to actually take up the pen and write your book yourself. Some would rather someone else write it for them, but with sunshine and puppies and many happy endings. The prospect of being left alone by the government to pursue your own happy ending is a frightening thought to some as the last student in the Q&A demonstrated by saying he doesnt want the government to leave him alone. A very sad statement... For too long people have been given the choice between "Do what I say. I know best." and " Here's a bunch of free stuff vote for us". Now when someone comes along and says "you're free to do what YOU want to do, but expect no handouts" it's quite shocking. Some see the incredible freedom and opportunity in that, others look at that prospect in horror as if having their crutch knocked out of their hand. They don't know how they will survive. I think Rand did a good job assuaging fears. He essentially said he didnt want to knock the crutch out, that there is a place for government, but that rehabilitation through an improved economy will be better in the long run than relying on a crutch that will never help you get any better.

Any way I hope Rand goes forward fearlessly speaking wherever he is allowed to and even places he isnt. Good on him.

Martin Luther King said right before he was assinated that

Desegregation will make the black community poor and it did and that he was wrong his whole life in pushing for it and said he was against the civil rights act of 1964 because of this. protection of the environment is not a function that the Constitution allows the federal government to perform. The epa needs to be eliminated because it sells the companies permits to pollute that the companies then sell on the market and the epa is not authorized in the constitution and is not accountable to the people becuase the head of the epa is not elected by the people and the head of any governmental agency. Goverment agencies take the power from congress and give it to the executive branch. To address any possible pollution, private property rights should function in this aspect as no man has the right to pollute another person's land, water, or air. if government regulation of the environment were removed and ill environment effects were addressed on a private property level, then the cost of any pollution would be built into the cost of that particular energy model. The best energy model would then prevail and would be the one that best balances the cost to bring the product to market and the effects it has on the environment.


The civil rights act of 1964

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 In light of the hysteria in recent days, here’s some valuable information from Thomas Sowell, from his indispensable book Civil Rights: Rhetoric or Reality?: Sowell notes that champions of the Official Version of History ignore already existing trends in black employment, well under way long before the enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, from which we are taught all blessings flowed. Writes Sowell: “In the period from 1954 to 1964, for example, the number of blacks in professional, technical, and similar high-level positions more than doubled. In other kinds of occupations, the advance of blacks was even greater during the 1940s — when there was little or no civil rights policy — than during the 1950s when the civil rights revolution was in its heyday. “The rise in the number of blacks in professional and technical occupations in the two years from 1964 to 1966 (after the Civil Rights Act) was in fact less than in the one year from 1961 to 1962 (before the Civil Rights Act). If one takes into account the growing black population by looking at percentages instead of absolute numbers, it becomes even clearer that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 represented no acceleration in trends that had been going on for many years. The percentage of employed blacks who were managers and administrators was the same in 1967 as in 1964 — and 1960. Nor did the institution of ‘goals and timetables’ at the end of 1971 mark any acceleration in the long trend of rising black representation in these occupations. True, there was an appreciable increase in the percentage of blacks in professional and technical fields from 1971 to 1972, but almost entirely offset by a reduction in the percentage of blacks who were managers and administrators.” Sowell further notes that Asians and Hispanics show similar long-term upward trends that had begun years before the passage of the 1964 Act, and which were not accelerated either by the Act itself or by the “affirmative action” programs that (inevitably) followed. Mexican-Americans’ incomes rose in relation to those of whites between 1959 and 1969, but not at a greater rate than between 1949 and 1959. Chinese and Japanese-American households had matched their white counterparts in income by 1959 (in spite of the fact that Japanese-Americans had been interned in concentration camps less than two decades before, and countless Americans blamed Japan for the loss of their sons).: http://www.tomwoods.com/blog/the-civil-rights-act-of-1964-wh...


Ron Paul – Against Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Hardball Interview)

property rights should be protected. your right to be on tv is protected by property rights. If someone wants to walk in your station I cant walk into your station. So right of freedom of speech is protected by property. The right of your church is protected by property. So people should honor and protect it. This gimmick it is just of the wall when you say I am for property rights, state rights therefore I am racist. I mean that is just outlandish. The jim crow laws enacted by the government were legal and we got rid of them under the civil rights act of 1964. But the only good thing about the civil rights act of 1964 is that it got rid of the Jim crow laws. Segregation was created by government laws. Slavery was created by government laws. Segregation in the military by government laws. So what we want to do as libertarians is to repeal all of those laws and honor and respect people with private property. But for you to imply that a property rights person is endorsing that stuff you do not understand that there would be zero size up today saying something like that and if they did they would be an idiot and they would be out of business. So I think you are just getting overboard and trying to turn it around and trying to accuse someone of being a racist. Segregation on buses was done by laws. That is a culture. Why do you want to go back to ancient days. It is past. the difference in being a libertarian is believing in liberty versus being a totalitarian. If you want the opposite just look around that is what we have. We have a totalitarian world. That is what most of history has been about totalitarianism, dictatorship. We have only had a small taste of freedom of choice, the principle of private property, and contract rights. We are blowing it. This whole thing that we are going to give up on that. What we are doing is trying to enthasize that something good and wonderful comes from freedom, and freedom of choice, and we should not say this that liberty is disgusting, as you imply and totalitarianism is the way we should run our country. We would be better if we had freedom, and not government controlling our lives, our personal lives and policing the world, and running the economy. We our facing a calamity because of that. We have a financial crisis. We have a crisis in foreign policy. We are losing thousands of people. Hundreds of thousands our coming back sick because of our foreign policy and we are at a point where we cannot sustain this and we are on the verge of runaway inflation because there is to much acceptance of big government. That is the problem. No matter how noble you try to make it, your good intentions will not compensate for the mistakes people make that want to run our life’s and run the economy and reject the principle of private property and making up our own decisions for ourselves: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rK-CXGwI2Gk


Flin, are not you tired

of constant copy-and-paste? This is about Rand not Ron.

Why the civil rights act needs to be repealed by Ron Paul

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

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

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

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

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

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


The whole visit seems like a

The whole visit seems like a Weiner Priebus gig to bring in more minority votes. Evident by the amount of weak arguments on how good republicans were in the past to slaves. Sounded very non-Paul like. If he really wanted to impress, he should of whipped out some Hayek, Bastiat, and Mises. But alas, we cannot have nice things.

Southern Agrarian


pure Libertarian or Austrain talk would had fallen on completely dead ears there. Rand had a very mature understanding of the context where he was and restraint that deserves credit.

Yes, he is less of a proponent of free-market capitalism or he is not as sincere as his father. Expecting cloning from good Dr. Ron Paul would be foolish.

The Bush/Obama tale

Was probably my favorite part of the speech. Full comments are over at Lions of Liberty, but in a nutshell, citing his "support" of the Civil Rights Act was probably the biggest misstep - that could have been addressed better. Overall the guy did pretty well and it's an admirable undertaking. http://lionsofliberty.com/2013/04/10/rand-pauls-speech-to-ho...

Oh wow. hahah ... The story

Oh wow. hahah ... The story about the black kid and white kid who could have been thrown in prison for drug use but luckily weren't caught and later both went on to be president -- priceless! That's some serious ammo to use in speeches. Nicely done, Rand!

Rand did well

considering that it was a tough gig for a Republican to talk about civil rights at a black college given the performance and positions of recent Republican presidents. It seemed the students were warming up to him a little at the end.

At 16:00 Rand made one of the best points I've ever heard

"Using taxes to punish the rich in reality punishes everyone because we are all interconnected."

That sticks it right to the collectivists.

Like him or not, Rand has

Like him or not, Rand has some serious guts. To talk about Civil Rights and try to explain his position on it to a pretty much all-black audience is just incredible. It just shows that he is very much like his father and is willing to speak his truth and not pander.

Can you imagine Marco Rubio behind that podium? He probably wouldn't even say the word "black."

I trust Rand more and more with every speech I hear.

I think the majority of the

I think the majority of the audience was extremely skeptical of Rand Paul and I don't think he quelled that skepticism after this visit.

When he asked the crowd if they had known the founders of the NAACP were Republicans, I thought he should have worded it better. (Maybe by presuming they did know, and then make your point).

I think the whole strategy of divide & conquer was ill-advised. He kept saying the Republicans freed the slaves blah blah blah, and the Democrats enforced Jim Crow laws blah blah blah...It was in essence calling them foolish for voting for Democrats, but if you're trying to win them over then you don't patronize them.

The first african american to

The first african american to serve the house of representatives was a republican from *fixed* Mississippi. Forgot his name.

Southern Agrarian

Progressive race propaganda is relentless

Every single day there are articles and comments hammering propaganda that the Republicans and tea-partiers and libertarians are racist, that their policies are racist, that the history of conservatism and the GOP is rooted in racism.

I did not think he was patronizing.

Good point.

Good point.

First Date...


This was a first date, and first dates always have some awkward moments. But you don’t get to marriage without some first dates.

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know Peace." - Jimi Hendrix


why isn't this thread on front page??

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

He didn't hit it out of the park,

but he got it well into the cheap seats.

Me gots the Tube You;o)


Courtesy of FreedomWorks.org

Liberty & Civil Rights speech by Senator Rand Paul Howard University


Published on Apr 10, 2013

Senator Rand Paul joined the students at Howard University to discuss civil rights, liberty and the future of freedom in America today.


And of course, the day would not be complete without MSDNC pulling off a 'racist'-card smear vs. the Pauls:

MSNBC On Rand Paul's Visit To Howard University (4-10-13)


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

Michael Nystrom's picture

Video update bump - Thanks AnCap

I updated the OP with both videos. On second thought, should that MSNBC video be in the OP? I'm not at a place where I can watch right now.

He's the man.