Rand Paul attacked by the Foul Smelling media



I have not followed Kentucky politics nor Rand Paul’s political career, so I never had an opinion about him one way or the other.  I noticed he did have a great victory, which I was happy about, and since he is a libertarion/conservative/tea party advocate, I should have known the corrupted liberal press and media would try to make mincemeat of him.  Didn’t take long.  Rachel Maddow, MSNBC, led the way.  I have vowed not to watch MSNBC so I did not see this when it aired, but when I began to hear about her interview with Mr. Paul, I tried to listen to a video of it.  Didn’t get all the way through it, but did notice that she had this pained expression on her face as if she had just swallowed a fly or something.

But why oh why do these democratc/progressive/left wing people insist on digging up race bones?  I could not believe she was  going back to the lunch counters.  Let me see, has that been about 50 or 60 years ago?  Could we just move forward?  No.  Of course not.  I imagine the little worker bees at Media Matters spent a lot of time trying to come up with some way to trap him with some controversy.  They LOVE it when they can stir up something, perfect example is Al Sharpton going down to the Mexican border and inserting himself and his racism into something that was of no concern to him.

Then we have George Stepho, ABC, interviewing Paul and bringing up the Civil Rights Act.  First thing.  Did not congratulate him on his win.  Did not give him a cordial introduction.  Slam.  Bam.  Back to 1964.  It’s totally irrelevant anyway.  But they are doing what they do.  Smearing and slimming and misrepresenting.

The democrats/progressives and their propaganda machine, the mainstream media. get on their high horse again and again acting like they have a gold star in race relations on their side.  And it’s sickening because they don’t.  They have a horrible record on race and human rights.

So I am going back with some Civil Rights facts.  Not all the way back, because there is much more dirt on the dems all the way back to the 1800’s somewhere.  But since Maddow and George and whoever else insist on pulling off scabs from somewhere around 1964, here’s just a few little factoids:

November 6, 1956
African-American civil rights leaders Martin Luther King and Ralph Abernathy vote for Republican Dwight Eisenhower for President

September 9, 1957
President Dwight Eisenhower signs Republican Party’s 1957 Civil Rights Act

September 24, 1957
Sparking criticism from Democrats such as Senators John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson, President Dwight Eisenhower deploys the 82nd Airborne Division to Little Rock, AR to force Democrat Governor Orval Faubus to integrate public schools

May 6, 1960
President Dwight Eisenhower signs Republicans’ Civil Rights Act of 1960, overcoming 125-hour, around-the-clock filibuster by 18 Senate Democrats

May 2, 1963
Republicans condemn Democrat sheriff of Birmingham, AL for arresting over 2,000 African-American schoolchildren marching for their civil rights

September 29, 1963
Gov. George Wallace (D-AL) defies order by U.S. District Judge Frank Johnson, appointed by President Dwight Eisenhower, to integrate Tuskegee High School

June 9, 1964
Republicans condemn 14-hour filibuster against 1964 Civil Rights Act by U.S. Senator and former Ku Klux Klansman Robert Byrd (D-WV), who still serves in the Senate

June 10, 1964
Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen (R-IL) criticizes Democrat filibuster against 1964 Civil Rights Act, calls on Democrats to stop opposing racial equality.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was introduced and approved by a staggering majority of Republicans in the Senate. The Act was opposed by most southern Democrat senators, several of whom were proud segregationists—one of them being Al Gore Sr. Democrat President Lyndon B. Johnson relied on Illinois Senator Everett Dirksen, the Republican leader from Illinois, to get the Act passed.

August 4, 1965
Senate Republican Leader Everett Dirksen (R-IL) overcomes Democrat attempts to block 1965 Voting Rights Act; 94% of Senate Republicans vote for landmark civil right legislation, while 27% of Democrats oppose. Voting Rights Act of 1965, abolishing literacy tests and other measures devised by Democrats to prevent African-Americans from voting, signed into law; higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats vote in favor.

February 19, 1976
President Gerald Ford formally rescinds President Franklin Roosevelt’s notorious Executive Order authorizing internment of over 120,000 Japanese-Americans during WWII

September 15, 1981
President Ronald Reagan establishes the White House Initiative on Historically Black Colleges and Universities, to increase African-American participation in federal education programs

June 29, 1982
President Ronald Reagan signs 25-year extension of 1965 Voting Rights Act

August 10, 1988
President Ronald Reagan signs Civil Liberties Act of 1988, compensating Japanese-Americans for deprivation of civil rights and property during World War II internment ordered by FDR

November 21, 1991
President George H. W. Bush signs Civil Rights Act of 1991 to strengthen federal civil rights legislation

August 20, 1996
Bill authored by U.S. Rep. Susan Molinari (R-NY) to prohibit racial discrimination in adoptions, part of Republicans’ Contract With America, becomes law

And let’s not forget the words of liberal icon Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood…

We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population….

So they really need to shut the hell up and get off Rand Paul’s back.  He made a huge mistake to go on with them to begin with.  He does not need them.  They will not give him a fair interview.  They are not fair in any way, shape, or form.  I read that he cancelled a Meet the Press appearance with David Gregory tomorrow.  Smart move, Mr. Paul.  Nobody watches it any way.

And as far as the Rachel Maddow show is concerned, it comes in last on Neilsen ratings – that is when Chris Matthews isn’t last.

To see more history on the democrat party record on race, here’s a link:

Black and Right website:  http://www.black-and-right.com/the-democrat-race-lie/

Here’s the absolute crap put out by George Stepho on ABC.  Notice the one and only Robert Gibbs has to give his opinion.

I wonder if George had his usual “strategy call” with the White House before he did the interview?   https://bellalu0.wordpress.com/2009/03/05/whats-going-on-with-begala-carville-stephanopoulos-rahm-emanuel-and-susan-rices-husband/

Posted:  05.22.10


Filed under Barack Obama, Human Interest, Media, politics, Uncategorized

7 responses to “Rand Paul attacked by the Foul Smelling media

  1. this is a great post, chock full of real history that oughta open the eyes of anybody used to the usual narrative.

    It’s the same old same old: “see! he’s a racist!” Perish the thought that he is not racist, but actually treasures his liberty so much that he is willing to extend liberty to everyone, even those that may arbitrarily discriminate in their own private businesses. BTW minority groups, scholarships, etc “discriminate” against caucasion but that don’t count I reckon.

    The race card is all they have left. And with too many people, it still works. I have sat in a “Coffee Party” meeting and listened to the people on whom it works.

    Hang on to your butts folks, cuz this kind of smearing is only the beginning. The more desperate they get, the worse their claims.

    Keep it up Bella


  2. bellalu0

    Noone: Have you noticed it’s only the good people who get slimed? I have really had it with these lies.


  3. Well, to your larger point that Rand Paul and Republicans aren’t racists, I’ll agree. Nothing he said was racist and Rachel Maddow never accused him of racism. The point of the conversation was never about race. Though it was a conversation involving race, you’re completely missing the true point of the conversation: the proper place of government in Libertarian philosophy.

    You see, in Progressive philosophy, governments job is to fix problems and move the country forward. Libertarians feel that most government intervention causes more problems than they fix, and that even when a problem seems fixed, the side affects were worse than the original problem.

    Civil Rights was a “win” for Progressive philosophy (note, I’m not saying Democrats). With the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Government fixed a problem, and most people would agree the country was better for it. Most people don’t want to go back to a place where restaurants are allowed to hang “White’s Only” signs.

    So using a racial sensitive bill to discuss philosophy on was probably not completely fair to Rand Paul, but he and Maddow are both professionals, and I won’t criticize a media reporter for being aggressive on policy questions.

    So I’ll pose a similar question to you, but I’ll leave out as much of the racial stuff as possible.

    Do you believe that government has the right and power to tell private citizens what to do with their own money and property if it’s believed they are misusing their own money and property?

    Rand Paul would probably say no. Rachel Maddow preemptively used the Civil Rights act in the question to make the “no” as painful as possible, thus doing her best to prove the answer should be “yes.” If you ask me, I’d say the answer is “as sparingly as possible.”


  4. Pingback: Political Book Summaries, Reviews and Opinions

  5. bellalu0

    I wouldn’t criticize an honest media person for asking probing questions. The key word here is honest and there is nothing professional or honest about Rachel Maddow. This network has zero credibility and I mean zero. I don’t believe an ethical reporter or journalist would even work there. They chose the racially sensative subject precisely because it was racially sensitive. They don’t realize that nobody cares any more. The use of the race card every time somebody blows their nose has ruined any chance of much sympathy in the face of real racism. But do they care about that? No. They are not interested in how they may be hurting people and the country by constant accusations. But let them keep it up. Fine. Change is coming.

    Look at the clip and you will see it was ALL about race, not about some deeper philosophical differences between progressives and libertarians, but trying to play on the emotions and hurts of the past. This is wrong, very wrong. And it is all done with the ulterior motive of slash and burn because he is aligned with the tea party movement. Too bad. It’s not going to work. It is just nauseating to watch.

    Plus you missed one of my main points, being the long list of evidences of racial corruption rampant in the democrat party, throughout history. Progressives, which are mainly democrats, have no genuine concern for anybody on an individual basis. And this is proven time and time again. The record is clear on it. They are all about groups and divisions with what seems like to me an effort to divide and keep divided, just a mass of humanity to be manipulated to carry out their agenda.

    But yeah Mr. Paul did just fine in the interview. He seems to be a professional person with principles. He doesn’t need my help.


  6. bellalu0

    Woo Hoo Djou!


  7. Ree

    I actually saw one of these bumper stickers today so the word is getting out.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s