Cliff Kincaid of Accuracy in Media and America's Survival has a post at News With Views about Rand Paul's now infamous gaffes on the Rachel Maddow Show. In it he warns that some of Rand's libertarian views could put him at odds with conservatives on a variety of issues and open him to criticism from all sides.
According to Kincaid, "The libertarian movement was the product of seminars held by the far-left Institute for Policy Studies back in the 1960s and 70s." And while libertarians are good on fiscal matters, because they believe in limited government, their isolationist positions on national defense, if adopted, would provide opportunities for our enemies to flourish and grow in the vacuum created by our absence.
Furthermore their particular views of limited government lead them to support legalization of marijuana, gay marriage and other positions that are anathema to conservatives. In the case with Maddow, Paul was painted into a corner by his own libertarian philosophy, which implies that government should not be able to regulate how private parties decide to conduct business at all, even if it means allowing them to engage in discrimination.
Whoops. Paul has since tried to clarify his position on this, but that doesn't matter to the left. They got what they wanted.
Now, the media has no problem with racists like the New Black Panther Party intimidating voters at the voting booth. They have no problem with these people being shielded by a sympathetic Attorney General who committed a shocking travesty by dismissing charges against the Black Panthers after they had already lost in court. They have no problem with black-only or women-only clubs. They have no problem with all forms of reverse discrimination.
This is academic because it harmonizes with the radical left's agenda to divide and conquer America's majority, which just happens coincidentally to be largely white, although their real targets are not whites per-se, but rather traditional, conservative Americans, of any color. Their treatment of Justice Clarence Thomas and other prominent, non-white conservatives, or female conservatives, like Sarah Palin for example, is instructive.
If America had a conservative black majority, the left would be agitating for the poor, downtrodden and oppressed white people. Consider Angola, Africa, for example. When the Luanda-based minority mulatto elitists, descendants of Portuguese colonial rule, took power following independence in 1975, the American left got foursquare behind them. In a bid to maintain power, Luanda's communist MPLA employed more than 25,000 Cuban troops, and another 430,000 Cubans assisted as "foreign aid volunteers". The first MPLA Leader, Agustinho Neto, had even met with Che Guevara, a fact certain to endear him to the American left. The MPLA also received immense help from the Soviet Union, in weapons, training and other support.
The American left showed its support too. Teddy Kennedy consistently voted against aid to the Angolan rebels of Jonas Savimbi's UNITA, while a Kennedy relative did business with the communist Angolan government. The hapless George H.W. Bush administration was easily outmaneuvered by the left regarding U.S. Angola policy and the Clinton administration of course sided with the communists. The end result of this war, which suckered gullible Republicans as well, was yet another disgraceful example of the United States abandoning an ally in the field, largely due to leftist foreign policy subterfuge. In this case it resulted in the murder of Jonas Savimbi and tens of thousands of his UNITA supporters following a fraudulent election that cemented the MPLA finally in power. Read the sad story here. Maybe the American left should be called "equal opportunity back-stabbers."
To see the irony and the hypocrisy of the Left's support for the Angolan MPLA, an analogy could be drawn by envisioning the American left supporting a cabal of rich Greenwich, CT stockbrokers who bought out the military and used it to take over the country... Or, better yet, imagine the radical left going on the march for largely white, Washington, DC, elitist kleptocrats who keep grabbing power while greedily stealing citizens' wealth through excessive taxation - and vilifying anyone who complains. Oh wait, that's what they're doing!
Never mind.
Anyway, the left loved the MPLA and hated the traditional black community - personified by Jonas Savimbi's UNITA - not because they love light-skinned people, any more than they like dark-skinned people, but because the group they sided with were communists. It is always about ideology and it is always about power. Nothing else matters to them.
Back to the present. It seems very clear that Rand Paul was deliberately ambushed by Maddow. In fact it is virtually certain that her strategy was mapped out well in advance, just as it was when the Congressional Black Caucus accused Tea Partiers of making racist remarks at the health care rally in April - demonstrably proven to be a complete fabrication. Yet the "racism" mantra has been repeated endlessly since then, and Paul allowed himself to be tricked into making a statement that gave the left ammunition to further promote that narrative. All they need is an excuse.
There has already been a call for Jim DeMint to renounce Paul, this time from an obscure South Carolina Senate candidate whose comments have been published, predictably by Daily Kos. But you knew this would happen. This is their game plan. It is always their game plan. As one of the most effective conservatives out there, DeMint may have been the ultimate target to begin with.
Rand Paul should have known better than to go on that show. It was a setup all along. The reason people like Maddow, Chris Matthews and Keith Olberman exist is to protect and defend the Democrat political machine and savage political enemies. They do not do news. They don't even do politics. They do political hits. That is their entire justification for being.
These people consider candidates like Paul, and practically any conservative for that matter, the enemy. They would not even have invited Paul on unless they had already carefully crafted a plan of attack and were confident of the outcome. There is no excuse for any principled candidate to offer these people any opportunities whatsoever.
People with star power like Paul give partisan hacks like Maddow an audience they wouldn't otherwise have. Most of these shows will continue to be subsidized by MSNBC despite their low ratings, because MSNBC's owner, General Electric, has its fortunes tied to the utterly corrupt Democrats.
Let GE drain its own resources supporting those losers. Don't help them out. Don't go on their shows. Don't give them the time of day. Don't even bother watching those shows. At some point, their management will need to make a sound business decision and drop these people or answer to shareholders. We should help them along with a complete boycott.
So this fiasco points up one serious issue that people should heed: Every single person in the Tea Party movement and every single conservative candidate must be perfectly clear-eyed in recognizing that the Left is a vicious, unscrupulous enemy, with a game plan firmly mapped out to smear the entire tea party movement with the "racist" label or any other label they think they can make stick.
Candidates should try to think their positions through a little more before making stupid remarks. We have had enough of stupid Republicans. With friends like them we don't need enemies.
Comments
Might be good to find out about Angola instead of repeatng the myth about the mullatos taking over Angola. And Luanda-based mullato elistists just shows your ignorance - the mullatos are all over Angola, but especially in the cities.
You know nothing about Angola!
Jim sez
"Rand Paul should have known better than to go on that show."
Rand Paul is smart enough to make his own decisions on how to run his campaign
I myself would go on MSNBC or Meet the Press or any other show to state my position & make my case for the way I believe the path this Country should follow the path of Freedom & Liberty , and be proud to stand with the spirit of Washington, Jefferson & Franklin in articulating this view.
IMO if us Freedom & Liberty types take your view & run & hide we will continue to flush this country down the toilet of tyranny
You can hear my comments on Rand & Civil Rights on Sentinel Radio I called in at about the 30 minute mark
Here's what i know about Angola....it sucks!
What is supposed to be the vicious thing about asking Rand Paul to which extent he supports the Civil Rights Act, especially considering that he had already publicly expressed views on that? If journalists could not do that, then this country would not be much different from China any more. I think it is wrong to say that Paul was less than forthcoming. He was perfectly frank: He supports banning discrimination by public institutions, but favors allowing discrimination by restaurants, supermarkets, etc. He was perfectly clear, and we get it. I think Rachel Maddow did a good thing by bringing that out into the open, and now we can all decide whether we agree with Rand Paul's viewpoint on this, or don't. If I lived in a town with only one supermarket, and if that supermarket decided not to sell to white people (I am white), I personally would want the government to tell them that they can't do that. But we can each have our own opinion on that. That's what elections are for.
Rui: No myth. You know nothing about Angola.
Roy: I agree with you except that going on those shows gives those people a legitimacy they don't deserve. They wouldn't invite you on if they weren't already confident of advancing their agenda by doing so. In this case that meant finding another pretext to smear Paul, and by association, Tea Partiers as racists.
This is the way they fight. Dirty and unscrupulous. The point of this article was to remind people of that. Paul did NOT know what he was getting into and did NOT know what he was doing. If he had, this issue would never have gotten any play. It was precisely because he fumbled that they have been highlighting it.
Voters need to be aware of a candidate's controversial positions that may not sit well with them. I've seen much more contentious and probing interviews. Maddow threw him Paul a softball and he couldn't handle it. I saw nothing mean or unscrupulous about it, in fact she kept politely asking him to clarify his position when he went off on tangents. If she didn't persist, she would not be doing her job as a journalist. Paul shouldn't have gone on the show because he was not prepared to answer any tough questions, which made him look evasive and shifty.
Jim I disagree ,Rand is not stupid & maybe he did not handle it exactly right but all of us I'm sure have been blindsided by a ? we did not handle to perfection
Rand will come back stronger & better prepared & will be a better candidate & better advocate for his position
Jim sez "The point of this article was to remind people of that. Paul did NOT know what he was getting into and did NOT know what he was doing. If he had, this issue would never have gotten any play."
The wrong way to play it Jim , if is was not for the Maddow/Paul interview the subject of Civil/Private Property Rights would not be brought up
It is a very important topic & one peeps should know where the candidates stand on the issue so they can make a informed vote.
We all should pick up the ball & keep this issue on the front burner if you really are going to change hearts & minds to Freedom & Liberty vs. Tyranny And it is not always going to be pretty or conducted on The Marquess of Queensberry rules l
Roy: I take your point and it is important to discuss these issues. Paul is correct - and he is a good candidate too.
I saw the Colmes interview with Ron Paul who did a pretty good job of defending his son.
But Colmes, very polite, still was trying to draw out the race card. And the point is that, no matter how polite, Colmes or, JB, Maddow might have been, it is still an ambush. They will leave it to the rest of the media to do the beating up.
If Paul is going to go on to those shows and attempt to explain himself w/o getting tripped up, knowing full well that the host cares not a whit for his prinicples or beliefs, but is instead looking for ways to discredit him and the entire movement, he needs to be better prepared.
Jim my point is if you think Rand Paul is right if you reread your article & the multiple IMO hit pieces that Kincaid has written this week the left can use that to continue to use that against the position that we as a free people have Personal Property Rights etc.
FWIW I think you should think a lot about what you have wrote & said & think a little more before you write or take some of the positions you do if you are really on board with advancing Freedom & Liberty
The Jim, I think this a pretty flimsy caricature of Angola built to prove your point.
Lots of bad things happened under the MPLA and continue to happen; however, the legacy of rapes, pillages, ethnic cleansing, forced diamond mining and other atrocities left by UNITA make it impossible to justify supporting Savimbi as righteous or noble; he was a megalomaniac, proclaimed as god, surviving by smuggling diamonds.
American political networks got involved on both sides, and more in favor of UNITA. Abramoff for example got his first job working for Savimbi, Charles Black too, as well as diamond interests. It is also impossible to consider US angola policy without talking about Apartheid South Africa; in those days how one felt about apartheid SA more or less determined how one felt about Angola.
It is a fruitless effort to try to pick "good guys" and "bad guys" in that time, and even more misleading to portray it as a good vs evil struggle
Thanks for the information.
'IMO if us Freedom & Liberty types take your view & run & hide we will continue to flush this country down the toilet of tyranny "
Right on Roy...Freedom and liberty are messy things. The whole point of the bill of rights is that by protecting the rights of those with Odious views, all ou rights are protected. If today you get dinged for not being PC about blacks, tomorrow they will ding you for not being PC about Muslims or Gays.
The solution is for people to take responsibility for their own lives and quit worrying what other people think.
Mike:
Actually it is not a flimsy caricature. I know that Savimbi was no saint, but the charaterizations of massacre, etc. are typical when the left congtrols the dialog, which they did in Angola and do, largely in the American press. Anybody would be better than the communists, as the South Africans knew, and are now coming to understand about their own country - rapidly degenerating toward the Zimbabwe model. The communists are always comprised of an elite at the core, and Angola was no different. But I did make the point, and it was a valid one.
As for other characterizations of "running and hiding" e.g. from "Liberty," I would be the last person to suggest that. If you read the article, you would understand that my argument is to fight smart. NOT don't fight.
Know where the attack is going to come from and have a defense in place- maybe Rand is not cut out to be a politician?
Which means he is likely the best person for the job!
Right on Jesse! I don't agree with Paul on everything, but we certainly don't need any more politicians!
Jim sez -"As for other characterizations of "running and hiding" e.g. from "Liberty," I would be the last person to suggest that. If you read the article, you would understand that my argument is to fight smart. NOT don't fight."
If you do not advocate run & hide why does your article include this ?
Jim sez - "Don't go on their shows."
Sounds like run & hide or don't fight to me, I read it You said it how would anyone come to any other conclusion than Jim Simpson advocates running & hiding from Maddow GE etc. & not take the Fight for Freedom & Liberty right into the lions den & let the chips fall where they may ?
Roy how you could read what I write and suggest I would run from anything is frankly, delusional.
Why don't you debate me on Fan the Fire with CJ & Tallulah on blog talk radio this evening 9-11 Eastern time? Maddow doesn't deserve the attention! Only leftists listen and they are only looking for ammunition. The goal is to defeat these people, not draw attention to them.
Wait, how do we go from Paul's position on the Civil Rights Act to saying that liberals supported something in Angola forty years ago that few people remember/know about and fewer people care?
I think you lost yourself when writing this. Or you have a lot of pent-up anger. Probably both.
www.crisisnow.com is for sale
special for you €450
In europe is starting a revolution in electric oil business.
EVs remove the dirty fossil turning engines.
Refuelec Europe
Bikelec UK
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!