20 votes

Defended Rand Paul, and now I'm a Racist.

In a heated debate with a colleague of mine about civil rights, I was struck with all the force of a city bus when my views on civil rights somehow labeled me a racist.

You see, following Rand Paul's speech at Howard University this week, media coverage was as expected: Fake conservative media ignored it, liberal media attacked Paul's speech like a group of rabid honey badgers, and independent media had the audacity to present more than just sound bites, criticisms, and overzealous praise by doing something completely outrageous — that is, providing objective coverage.

The latter is where I tend to get most of my news.

My colleague, however, is a fully admitted slave to to the plastic faces on mainstream “news” shows that spit out lies and misinformation like the good robots they are.

In any event, I was labeled a racist because I found Paul's speech to be one of the few truly honorable ones delivered at Howard University, compared to other lawmakers who have also stood before the students of Howard in the past.

How so?

It wasn't delivered behind the backdrop of liberal white guilt, fake nervous smiles, and the visible fear of offending anyone.

Sure, it wasn't the most heartfelt speech I've ever heard. And clearly there was an agenda to make the republican case. But unlike other politicians I've watched speak at Howard, it definitely didn't carry that patronizing tone we've heard so many times before.

And that's what makes all the difference.

Ending Oppression

Despite my lack of criticisms of Senator Paul's speech, there were plenty out there who attempted to paint Paul as a racist because he had the courage to open up the dialogue on civil rights in a rational and honest way.

You know, it's really easy to sit behind a camera and talk about the importance of civil rights and all the accomplishments the civil rights movement facilitated for minorities. But it takes a certain level of fortitude to be honest about where we are today on this issue.

Did the civil rights movement of the 1960s help lay the groundwork for opportunity and freedom for those who weren't allowed to enjoy it? Absolutely. Have dozens of laws and regulations been able to end the oppression of minorities? Not at all.

A Nation of Slaves

Although slavery was outlawed in 1865, there are plenty of folks these days (and not just minorities) who are still enslaved.

You see, there are three was to enslave communities: Keep them poor, keep them uneducated, and keep them unable to protect themselves.

My friends, this is exactly what our government does.

While plenty of politicians will boast about helping minority communities and providing financial help for those who need it, most are just exacerbating the problem.

If they truly wanted to embrace civil rights, they would spend less time chasing the effects of failed policies and more time focusing on the root of the problem — which is clearly the absence of opportunity.

Poor, Uneducated, and Defenseless

Today's lack of a real free market coupled with overzealous bureaucrats determined to further regulate our ability to pursue life, liberty, and property accomplishes the goal of keeping many folks poor, uneducated, and defenseless.

If you support civil rights for all Americans, then its imperative that we enable opportunity for all Americans.

And the best way to do that is to encourage wealth creation, education, and self-reliance.

You want to lift folks out of poverty? Encourage business development by limiting harmful and superfluous regulations that, these days, seem nearly synonymous with the tributes once paid by local store owners to mafia bosses.

You want to educate people? This is a tough one, as education really does start in the home. And the majority of American children living in poverty (regardless of race) are the ones who are not properly educated before heading off to school. I would argue that even if you had a superior school, public or private, available to these kids, if education isn't a priority at home, it won't be in the classroom.

Moreover, if those kids don't respect their parents, they won't respect their teachers. And that opens up another can of worms that makes things even more difficult.

Although I'm very much in favor of supporting more privatization and a complete restructuring or possibly gutting of the public school system as we know it today (including the Department of Education), it would be detrimental to the health of our nation if a system wasn't in place beforehand that would see to it that the most vulnerable were not denied an education and the chance to rise up and become financially independent as adults.

As Frederick Douglas once said, “Knowledge makes a man unfit to be a slave.”

If you want to make sure folks can defend themselves, they must have access to firearms. That's not to say they should be required to own them; but if needed to protect their families from those seeking to do them harm, there should be no restraints on their ability to do so.

As I wrote last week, we simply can't make it more difficult for those on limited incomes in poorer, more violent neighborhoods to protect themselves, as these folks are at a much higher risk of victimization.

Bottom line: You will find more solutions to civil rights problems by encouraging free market solutions, supporting and defending the Constitution, and opening up a real, honest dialogue with those who are disproportionately victimized by a system that tends to praise the glory days of the civil rights movement, but actually promotes an agenda of restrained liberty — which, of course, erodes civil rights instead of strengthening them.

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

A New One for You...

Here's a new one I just posted called "Socialist Republicans Busted."




If I disappear from a discussion please forgive me. My 24-7 business requires me to split mid-sentence to serve them. I am not ducking out, I will be back later to catch up.

You nailed it.

100% truth. Thanks.

Lord Acton, Lord Chief Justice of England, 1875 - "The issue which has swept down the centuries and which will have to be fought sooner or later is the People v. The Banks."

Never Defend a Politician

The first thing you need to do is detach the argument from the politicians.

Throw Rand in the wastebasket. He's meaningless. Just like Ron is.

Of course, I don't mean this personally. But your "opponent" clearly has an emotional deterrence to the person. Use that. Embrace it. Toss the person at issue aside.

"I'm not defending Rand Paul. Hell, I couldn't care less about Rand Paul as a politcian or person. I don't know him. Don't need to.

Now, on the subject of X, you said X. Why do you feel this way?"

Sales is 90% asking questions, 10% tailoring your message to the answers.

And make no mistake: You're in sales.

ABC, baby.


Ask questions. Get answers. Flip 'em like pancakes.

It's really not complicated at all.

Unless you attach your argument to a politician.

In which case, why don't you just give yourself a wedgie and save your opponent the trouble.

Do you know what site you are on?

'Throw Rand in the wastebasket. He's meaningless. Just like Ron is.'

Sorry buddy.. Im down with ABC since the Jackson 5. Rand is the best chance we have to restore Constitutional govt to America. Without his father, we wouldn't even have this website.

Ive also worked my ass off for Ron and this message of peace and freedom. The last thing I am willing to do is throw any of it away. We have worked so hard, donated so much and believed our movement was worthy.

Im a little l Libertarian. Then Im a Republican.. but above all else I am a Ron Paul supporter. There isnt a fire extinguisher in the world that can put out that flame.

Sarcasm is awesome.. its 90% truth.

'Peace is a powerful message.' Ron Paul

Ever listen to The Protomen?

Probably not, they're not very well-known. But I highly recommend you do. It's a rock opera about MegaMan (yeah, like the 80s game series). It's set in a dystopian future in which two robots try to free humanity from a technocratic Orwellian society.

And what both come to realize, slowly but surely, is that one man cannot stop the tide of tyranny. Elected officials, no matter how much support they have, cannot end our problems; they are too large for one man, or any body of men, to bear for us.

WE THE PEOPLE must end tyranny. Until you realize that NO politician or political party can change our inevitable future, you are the dead.

"They looked to me once. Now they turn to you. Do you understand now?
Do you see that the truth is they don't want to change this?
They don't want a hero. They just want a martyr, a statue to raise.

I've given everything I can. There are no heroes left in man."

"If these people...tell this story...to their children...as they sleep...maybe someday...they'll see a Hero...is just a man...who knows he is free."
-The Protomen

"The state is the great fictitious entity by which everyone seeks to live at the expense of everyone else."
-Frederic Bastiat


That was awesome!

The post

or the band? Either way, thank you. :D

"The state is the great fictitious entity by which everyone seeks to live at the expense of everyone else."
-Frederic Bastiat

Your post is great.

I will search out the band now.

With all due respect, you're

With all due respect, you're an idiot.

Did you bother to read what followed?

Obviously, the answer is no.

I await your apology.

keep waiting...

hear the crickets yet?

Your condescending comment hears the crickets too.

'Peace is a powerful message.' Ron Paul

The sound of crickets is more

The sound of crickets is more substantive than anything I've read from you thus far.

good one..


yo mamma is so statist...

'Peace is a powerful message.' Ron Paul

When someone is in an argument with you

and you're completely right, you'd think the only thing left for them to do is concede. That's not what they do. They first look for any angle to discredit your argument or assure themselves that your argument must have some kind of less-than-honorable basis to it. That really is on them if they don't want to face your argument on its merits, but remember when you feel the urge to lay out more and more of what you believe in response when they're just not getting it, that you are handing them more opportunities to find their out, that thing they can willfully misinterpret or attribute to less-than-honorable motives.

An alternative is to tighten your holding pattern on your original point. They might still choose to willfully misinterpret, but they'll have chosen from fewer options and they might not be as content with their selection.

Defend Liberty!

Arguing is tough.

"If you have always believed that everyone should play by the same rules and be judged by the same standards, that would have gotten you labeled a radical 60 years ago, a liberal 30 years ago and a racist today."
Thomas Sowell, Economist

Also, when you argue, always provide a context that what you advocate should be implemented within 20-40 year transition period so the elderly wont lose social security, Howard students' relatives their Section 8 free housing, our faithkeepers their trade union police job and our non-draft vets their stress syndrome money.

No big deal

In modern America, all you have to do to be labeled "racist" is be a white person to the right of Chris Matthews.

So shrug it off. "Racist" just doesn't have the negative meaning it used to have, because there really isn't anything wrong with being a white person to the right of Chris Matthews.

You're joking

Rand goes to a Black American university to give a speach, inviting them into the GOP, and that makes Rand and anyone who supports Rand a racist?

Be fair Granger...

Go to the lefty sites..

Its all about tying Rand to Rons newsletters. The left is as ignorant as the blue haired Right. They take their marching orders and distort any message coming from anybody that doesnt fit their views and beliefs.

Politically we better out maneuver them. There has to be a way to use their tactics against them.

'Peace is a powerful message.' Ron Paul

You want me to be fair or real?

To be real, The majority who voted for Obama are racists and in complete denile.. voting for a man because the namtion needs a black face is racism.

To be fair, I have to remember that young liberals can grow up to be conservatives so you have to be nice, and old liberals are dangerous, so you have to be nice.. they KNOW they are wrong, but they ice it with foaming rage, which is unbecomming and uncomfortable,

It's just MSM being MSM Grang

They're gonna spin it however they wanna spin it. How much do you wanna bet that had it been Rubio instead of Rand, the propaganda would've been different? Props go to Rand for doing what the others, as usual, fail to do.

True ecard71

I'd say this one went from spin cycle to tumble dry.

JustLiberty4US's picture

I'm sorry to hear about that,

I'm sorry to hear about that, GreenChip. That sort of thing could have happened to any of us at work. Sometimes, it's good to pick and choose your battles, because many are not worth it.

From your description, it sounds like it didn't matter what you said, your colleague was going to voice their uneducated opinion, and disagree with you.

Some of the comments below state that Rand should have not gone to Howard. However, he has a lot of capital coming off the filibuster. If he was going to try to reach out to the black community, now was the time.

I am a racist

I say "n*****" at least 50 - 100 times a day...

It just comes natural whenever I hear or see either of the home invaders who are occupying the White House.

The same ones who "jack" Air Force One and party hardy on our dime.

And I support Rand Paul.

Oh and I have a black grand daughter who I respect and admire.

Like it or not Rand Paul will carry his father Legacy!

this is for the ultra Liberty anarchist which represent 0.1% of our society.

Rand Paul - Benedict Arnold

Rand Paul will no sooner carry on the legacy of the principled, honorable Ron Paul than William Franklin carried on Benjamin Franklin's legacy.

"Ignoring instructions from (Benedict) Arnold to involve no one else in the plot, Stansbury crossed the British lines and went to see Jonathan Odell in New York. Odell was a Loyalist working with William Franklin, the last colonial governor of New Jersey and >>the son of Benjamin Franklin.<< On May 9, Franklin introduced Stansbury to Major André, who had just been named the British spy chief. This was the beginning of a secret correspondence between Arnold and André, sometimes using his wife Peggy as a willing intermediary, that culminated over a year later with Arnold's change of sides." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benedict_Arnold)

Was William Franklin like the honorable Patriot, Benjamin Franklin? NO.

You can replace the name "Benedict Arnold" in the above with the name "Mitt Romney" and replace "William Franklin" with "Rand Paul"

The price of freedom is eternal vigilance. ~Thomas Jefferson

“It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie...the greatest enemy of the State.” ~Joseph Goebbels

Rand Paul Is A Treasonous Betrayer

No matter how much gushing over, painting in pretty colors, groveling on your knees before and licking the hands of Rand Paul you do - he is still an untrustworthy TRAITOR.

Rand Paul:

1. Betrayed his honorable father to endorse that hideous DOG OF WAR for president - for political expediency.

2. Is a Traitor. Rand Paul voted for the WHOLLY Un-Constitutional $650 BILLION NDAA 2013, along WITH Lieberman, McCain, Harry Reid, John Kerry, Dianne Feinstein (http://www.opencongress.org/vote/2012/s/221), in complete violation of his oath of office. His father NEVER did that!

3. Voted For Sanctions. Ron Paul said sanctions are "an act of war". Rand Paul voted FOR sanctions against Iran. ((http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2012/12/rand-paul-votes...)

4. Said he would talk/filibuster until he got answers from Obama. He set himself up as the new "Mr. Smith Goes To Washington" - and was an epic failure. He didn't get answers at midnight - and he shut up and left. The character, Mr. Smith, was principled; Rand is not. "Mr. Smith" was portrayed as a Patriot; Rand is not.

Even if Rand is betraying, compromising and being a traitor to "play the game". . .how far will he go? Selling your soul to the Republican puppet masters while violating your father, your oath, your country - these compromises are somehow worth that? To Rand, apparently "Yes". To me, no way.

Ron Paul never compromised principle, honor, truth and definitely NEVER violated his oath of office to defend and protect the Constitution of the United States. Rand Paul has compromised all of those.

Rand Paul's actions do not follow his words - which are hollow - like his conscience. . .like the vast majority of those in the Republican Party.

Be honest. . .you wouldn't give this Rand clown the time of day - IF he weren't Ron Paul's son. Who are you supporting, other than Rand, that voted for the NDAA? Hmm? McCain? Feinstein? John Kerry?!

Rand is not Ron Paul - never will be. Stop acting like the "Sheeple" you so detest. LOOK. THINK!

The price of freedom is eternal vigilance. ~Thomas Jefferson

“It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie...the greatest enemy of the State.” ~Joseph Goebbels


1. He told everyone he'd endorse whoever won. By that point Romney had basically won. Rand and Ron are obviously still on fine terms, so I doubt this is as much of a "betrayal" as you make it out to be.
2. No he didn't, he voted against the final incarnation of the bill.
3. He voted for sanctions against Iran's central bank, specifically, not for them against people, food, or trade. I wasn't wholly pleased with the vote, but I can see the rationale. Heck, I wish someone would impose some sanctions on OUR central bank.
4. You've gotta be kidding me. You try and go that long without taking a piss. You're holding this against Rand? It brought the issue of Drones fully out into the national conversation and I consider it a huge step in the right direction. I can't believe you'd have the audacity to consider this a reason he'd "betrayed us."

Ron Paul never compromised principle, honor, truth and definitely NEVER violated his oath of office to defend and protect the Constitution of the United States. Rand Paul has compromised all of those.

What do you call what Dr. Ron Paul did when he voted for Newt Gingrich and John Boehner for Speaker of the House?

Quit peddling the NDAA vote, that he actually voted AGAINST the final bill for. Get your head on straight and quit trying to push the obvious falsities. Rand is the best we've got in the Senate, and he's doing a heck of a job. Not perfect, but a heck of a job for sure.

Eric Hoffer

*Double Sigh*

My facts are straight. . .read the links, sockpuppet.

NDAA 2013: "S.3254: An original bill to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2013 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes."

"Not perfect"? He's far from perfect. Stop making excuses for Rand.

The price of freedom is eternal vigilance. ~Thomas Jefferson

“It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie...the greatest enemy of the State.” ~Joseph Goebbels


You really don't understand how the Senate works do you?


From GOVTRACK: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/112-2012/s229

As a repost, Rand Paul SLAMMING the bill as an abomination: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/21/ndaa-indefinite-det...

The one you're posting died and never passed. It is NOT the version of the NDAA with the indefinite detention clauses, it was the prior version of the bill from the prior congressional session.



I swear, you people are shameless sometimes. Go back to your shanties.

Eric Hoffer

Inbreeding - It Has Not Served You Well, Eric

Seriously, are you retarded? I'm not lying to anyone - and stop accusing me of such.

Had YOU taken the time to look it up, YOU would know how ignorant YOU are of how the Senate works. Let me help you, since you're apparently educationally impaired: "Senators are allowed to yield for questions from other senators without yielding the floor. This has been crucial to Paul's approach today. Senators may speak for as long as they can talk and stand, but in yielding for questions today, Paul has not had to remain in the chamber. Thus, when Paul yields for questions from other senators, he may leave the chamber for food and bathroom breaks." (http://www.policymic.com/articles/28884/filibuster-rules-say...)

Dude, you are TOTALLY bereft of any sense, at ALL!! RAND PAUL VOTED FOR THE NDAA 2013. Here is another view of his voting "YEA" for the bill Obama signed into LAW: http://www.ibtimes.com/ndaa-bill-2013-how-did-your-senator-v...

Rand has repeatedly said one thing and done another - so - citing some rant from him means nothing. His actions, voting FOR the NDAA 2013, scream LOUDER than his driveling.

Now, why don't you settle down and stop trying to deceive people, for whatever your warped purposes may be.

The real Eric Hoffer was a great philosopher - you're not. It's fortunate for him that he's not alive to see what a sham you're making of his good name.

The price of freedom is eternal vigilance. ~Thomas Jefferson

“It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie...the greatest enemy of the State.” ~Joseph Goebbels