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.

Comment viewing options

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

Complete idiot

Did you actually read the link you quoted?!

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_c...

THAT'S FROM THE SENATE PAGE. PAUL VOTED NAY. Can you please concede now? I mean you might not be lying, but this is some hard core competitive level purposeful blindness to the truth you've got going on here.

Let me quote the document: "Paul (R-KY), Nay"

I mean seriously man, get a clue here.

Ok, on to the Senate rules on the filibuster.

No, you can't leave the floor in a talking filibuster. You can only do so on the silent kind. The guy on policymic is unfortunately just completely wrong. During a talking filibuster, you must remain standing at your desk. Other kinds of filibusters, like the silent kind, don't require this. To quote the actual Senate rules as opposed to some moejron on policymic:

"Yielding the Floor and Yielding for Questions
A Senator who has the floor for purposes of debate must remain standing and must speak more or less continuously. Complying with these requirements obviously becomes more of a strain as time passes. However, Senators must be careful when they try to give some relief to their colleagues who are speaking. Senate precedents prohibit Senators from yielding the floor to each other. To gain the floor, a Senator must seek recognition from the presiding officer. Thus, if a Senator simply yields to a colleague, he or she has yielded (relinquished) the floor, however inadvertently. This is another one of those Senate procedures that often is not observed during the
normal conduct of business on the floor. But during a filibuster involving extended floor debate, Senators are much more likely to insist on it being observed. A Senator may yield to a colleague without losing the floor only if the Senator yields for a
question. With this in mind, a colleague of a filibustering Senator may give that Senator some relief by asking him or her to yield for a question. The Senator who retains control of the floor must remain standing while the question is being asked. The peculiar advantage of this tactic is that it sometimes takes Senators quite some time to ask their question, and the presiding officer is reluctant to force them to state their question before they are ready to do so. In this way, participating Senators can extend the debate through an exchange of what sometimes are long questions followed by short answers, rather than by relying exclusively on a series of long, uninterrupted speeches."

http://www.senate.gov/CRSReports/crs-publish.cfm?pid='0E%2C*PLW%3D%22P%20%20%0A

Let me reiterate my final point: THE LINK YOU POSTED SHOWS CLEARLY THAT RAND VOTED NAY. Click the link they source on that page.

So how about that apology now guy? Mind serving that up after the plate of crow?

Erich Hoffer

I dunno..

I think in more political terms and calculate it as such.

It was a big political risk for Rand and it is coming back to bite him.

Race is a debate white people are not allowed in. Even if you are the most sincere and honest, you will still be attacked. If I were one of his staff, I would have encouraged him not to do it.

Rand is getting to be very popular and this move is proving to be a liability. The left is drudging up his dad's newsletters and trying to paint Rand for the 'sins of the father'.

Rands supporters are now stuck in defensive mode. I hate it when this happens because once 'labeled' its very hard to shake the stigma. One leftie can take a 2 second clip (like Maddow) and spin it to fit their agenda.

Damned if you do, damned if you dont.

Politically it hurt him. The filibuster being stopped hurt him. Now that he is getting popular the Senate will not allow him any more limelight if they can help it. Passing that bill was purely political and aimed at shutting him up.

Just my .02c :)

Great piece. You are an outstanding writer.

'Peace is a powerful message.' Ron Paul

RE: P.Nicholson comment

Thank you for the kind words. Much appreciated.

You're probably right

Let's face it, though, he was going to be labeled a racist at some point anyway. That's the game. If anyone dares argue that everyone should actually be treated equally, then they are a racist these days. I know I've been accused of it. I don't care. I know I'm not so it doesn't matter to me what anyone says, but I'm not running for office either.

When I think of anything political...

I always ask myself...

What would Lee Atwater do? Like him or not.. That man was the best political machinist in my lifetime. If you have Hulu or Netflix look up:

Boogieman: The Lee Atwater Story

That documentary made me realize that if we were all Lee Atwaters we could change the country in one election. To defeat these turds that hold us back, we must be politically vicious. He played to win at all costs and I will too. He was sneaky, played the media like fools and got presidents elected.

This is chess and not checkers. If we want to win, we better be ready to fight dirty.

'Peace is a powerful message.' Ron Paul

I found more racism

in the woman's reaction at the end of this video:
http://reason.com/reasontv/2013/04/11/sen-rand-paul-at-howar...

Be it racism, ignorance, or whatever. Of course, that's strictly my opinion.

Are you

Perhaps a writer? I enjoyed that very much. Thank you!

Ron Paul convert from the Heart of Dixie

RE: AngieDfromAL's comment

Thanks for the kind words, Angie. Yes, I am a writer. You can read my weekly "Freedom Watch" column here: http://www.wealthdaily.com/archives/freedom-watch

Thanks again!

Jeff