Image 01 Image 03

Hundreds of CPAC Attendees #StandWithRand

Hundreds of CPAC Attendees #StandWithRand

At College Insurrection we reported that, in honor of Rand Paul’s historic filibuster, the head of the Hillsdale College Republicans wanted CPAC attendees standing during the senator’s convention speech.

It looks like Ryan Bolyard got his wish, as hundred of students chose to #StandWithRand.

Josiah Ryan contributed a report for Campus Reform that included this video:

Hundreds of CPAC attendees stood throughout Sen. Rand Paul’s (R-Ky.) address to at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) on Thursday in a sign of solidarity for the historic 13-hour filibuster he held on the floor of the U.S. Senate last week.

The 5,500 seat auditorium, at a hotel just outside of Washington D.C., appeared to be at capacity. The large majority of attendees stood throughout the duration of the 12-minute speech.

The action, which was organized by Hillsdale College student Ryan Bolyard, gained momentum throughout the week as conservatives flocked to the Washington area for the annual conference.

“My goal was to show solidarity in the conservative movement with those who are willing to stand up and defend our Constitution and our personal liberties,” said Bolyard. “I was thrilled with the turnout, and the energy in the room.”

Paul created international headlines when he filibustered President Obama’s nomination of John Brennan for CIA Director for 13-hours on the Senate floor last week.

The above video captured the audience; the Daily Paul provided the following video of Paul’s CPAC address, which included a review of the reasons for his filibuster and some thoughts on the current direction of the GOP.

The money quote has to be this:

The GOP of old has grown stale and moss-covered. I don’t think we need to name any names, do we? Our party is encumbered by an inconsistent approach to freedom. The new GOP will need to embrace liberty in both the economic and the personal sphere.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.



According to John Locke, one of America’s Founding Fathers, if a government created by society is not doing its job properly, that is, in the interest of those who created it, then it ought to be overthrown. The exact same reasoning must be applied to the now useless, self-serving, establishment-controlled Republican Party. It’s time to flush AMNESTY-JOHN McRINO, lindsey Grahamnesty, mealy-mouth mcconnell, spineless, gutless cry-baby boehner and all of the pathetic, useless, non-conservative rest. Keep it up, Rand Paul, Tom Cruz, and other conservatives. We’re behind you all the way!

I agree with Rand Paul most of the time, but I boggle at his ability to vote for the President’s appointees after voicing opposition in debate. The vote itself is the “Advise and Consent”. It seems a bit disingenuous to voice opposition, then vote for an appointee.

Other than that, though, I think Rand Paul has very valid points concerning personal and economic liberty.

I would simply ask where the line is when it comes to federal control? We don’t like the infringement, but we do like the benefits we receive, not to mention that many are in need, and that there is unlawful inequality.

Some are afraid that conservatives will rely too much on individualism, and that has its negatives.

    I don’t like the benefits or the control. I want to be left alone by this tyrannical government be it federal, state, and/or local. I am sick to death of people whining about their bennies from the government. It’s time to cut off from the teat of the government.

    As to your second point, we need more individualism. America was not founded on collectivism. If people want that, they need to go to countries where collectivism is currently practiced, they have a variety of third world crackpot dictatorships to go to.

      BannedbytheGuardian in reply to heimdall. | March 14, 2013 at 7:49 pm

      They won’t let Americans in.

      I do not disagree, but at some point we have to recognize that not all people are capable in the society to fend for themselves, and there are also times when people are discriminated against.

      America was not founded solely on liberty, but also on equality, which is communitarian. There can be a balance, and it does not mean that anyone needs to leave.

        How the heck did we go for the last few millennia without government support of the poor and the indigent??? Oh that’s right, they were helped by PRIVATE orgs and religious institutions. You are espousing big government nannyism.

        People will always discriminate too. You want to empower government to be the thought police for the populace. These ideas you are espousing are evil “progressive” drivel that endeavours to tug at the heartstrings. You give a government that nose under the tent and they always end up toppling the tent over to get inside and wreck everything.

        The government social safety net doesn’t help anyone. It instills laziness and forces people to be dependent on the government for support, since if they leave, they lose the bennies.
        Equal opportunity

          HarrietHT in reply to heimdall. | March 14, 2013 at 11:51 pm

          My thoughts exactly, heimdall. The idea that of all entities the GOVERNMENT is best suited to help the indigent is a fool’s dream. It separates the needy from the charitable; coerces support from taxpayers who might wish to help in other ways; appeals to base instincts like envy and laziness; erodes character, honor, and self-reliance among recipients; and promotes a political class the members of which disburse their favors to the highest bidder to get and keep power, all the while patting themselves on the back for their supposed compassion.

          There were way less people and they dies way earlier.

          As I said, I understand where you are coming from and agree in self-reliance, but it’s not the reality, for many reasons.

          It does not mean support for socialism either.

          It’s not just helping the indigent, either.

          Government helps protect against discrimination.

          Or should we pretend that there is no discrimination either?

          heimdall in reply to heimdall. | March 15, 2013 at 11:19 am

          Back to discrimination again. I have already stated that discrimination will ALWAYS exist. If I told my boss that I was a conservative or that I did not vote for Barack Obama, I know she will find a reason to let me go, she has done it before with conservatves in our office. BUT, it is HER office and she has the right to choose who she works with be it racist, sexist, political motivations. It is better for society to use peer pressure against people than to use the end of a gun aka, the Government. All government is doing is pushing blatant discrimination under a thin veneer of equality.

          Amjean in reply to heimdall. | March 15, 2013 at 11:58 am

          The government also discriminates. I live in a 160,000+
          populated town approximately an hour west of Chicago.

          My aunt worked as a waitress in a restaurant in either the late 60’s or early 70’s. The law at that time was that blacks could work in the businesses, however, had to be out of the city by sundown. The people that worked or who dined at the restaurant had no problem with working with,
          being served by, having their food cooked by or chatting up the manager who was black. I don’t think the residents even knew this law existed. However, it is true. The people of the town didn’t make this law since most of them didn’t even know about it. Most trouble is caused by government thinking they know better than everyone else.

    unlawful inequality
    theres a talking point….one used by small jealous people.

      Excuse me? Just who are you speaking about?

      If there was not unlawful inequity, there would be no need for equal protection under the law.

      Last I saw, that was part of the Constitution.

    Henry Hawkins in reply to oldschooltwentysix. | March 14, 2013 at 8:21 pm

    At a certain level, government benefits ARE control.

      Are any benefits warranted then?

      Seems to me that people complain about the control, except when they are receiving benefits, and I do not mean simply welfare.

        Really?? The only benefits that anyone should be getting are the protection of the military, which is expressly authorized by the constitution. The States can do more if they want to, but nobody should be getting benefits from the federal govt like Medicare or Social Security or food stamps or earned income tax credits or education dollars or federal road funding.

        Do you seriously think that government funding and “help” for the poor and forced equality based on what some Washington DC government official says it is?

          OK. I completely disagree that there should be no safety net.

          I also believe in subsidiarity as an approach to governing, which means decentralized with an understanding not to reasonably deny centralization.

          heimdall in reply to heimdall. | March 15, 2013 at 11:29 am

          How are the subsidies working for federally funded K-12 education? Ethanol? The Banks? Cars? Farmers? Medicaid? Colleges? Highways?

          All of these are subsidized by the federal government. Do you think these areas are healthy right now? College tuition is through the roof. K-12 is funded at the largest rates ever and is failing nearly half the students in some cases. Ethanol increases our prices at the pump based entirely on crop cycles. The banks are all being propped up as well as the car companies by our government. Our highways are in disrepair since the federal government is more interested in green energy than improving what it already has, just look at I5 here in Washington State, there are places where you need to stay in the rutts or you will feel like you are offroading it.

        Henry Hawkins in reply to oldschooltwentysix. | March 15, 2013 at 10:25 am

        “Are any benefits warranted then?”

        Note I said “at a certain level”. My fully benefitted, medically ‘disabled’ brother-in-law forgot about a deadline to have required paperwork submitted to the SSA in order to keep the bennies coming. He was angry because in order to make the deadline he had to cut short his ski trip to Colorado.

        Of course some benefits are warranted and it is an easy fix – if we can elect people of principle and courage.

    What on earth does someone’s problem at taking care of themselves have to do with justifying oppressing anyone else’s individualism?

    ‘Individualists’ pay taxes. People with problems get benefits from those taxes. Stop aping the party line and think for yourself.

    Haliburton! Global warming! It’s Bush’s fault!

McCain, who personally destroyed five (5) U.S. Navy aircraft and is therefore a “reverse ace”, is quite the “whacko bird” himself. McCain flew an A-4, too small for successful ejection so his arms are mangled for life. How stupid is that?

Occupied Territory | March 14, 2013 at 7:35 pm

Nice! So, lots did the “Stand with Rand.” Did any do the “Sit with Mitt”?

We have Sen Marco Rubio’s full CPAC Speech posted now on Common Cents…

I like the man, but when he starts talking legal dope and other Libertarian stuff, he loses me. Glad Marco was there!!

Allen West had a great speech at CPAC as well:

How can there be economic liberty in a society which is comprised of ‘consenting adult’ citizens who consider it their right to stick their greedy hands in my private wallet demanding I pay for the consequences of their sex lives, their drug lives, their drunken lives, thgeir Hollywood lives, they Gay lives, their sexually-oriented lives etc ad nausea?

Why am I responsible for paying the tab for other women’s abortion, or birth control pills, or children, home, food, clothes? I thought we women were supposed to be ‘liberated’?

Why am I responsible for the boyfriend or the husband or the one-night-stand guy who refuses to step up to the plate and take responsibility for their sperm?

Why do I have to pay for the pot head too stoned to remember they have to pay their own bills?

Why do other people-complete strangers- have the right to stick their hands in my wallet, legalized theft, while at the same time stick their noses in the air demanding that I stay out of their private lives?

I am all for government getting out of my life but I know this won’t happen because too many consenting adults are addicted to OPM (other people’s money).

Politics today makes me feel like I am a parent in a house full of snotty, spoilt 21 year old brats who expect me to pick up the tab for everything while they rag on me about how uncool I am for questioning their stupid, irresponsible actions.

I have gone Galt and I won’t be paying any more money to support everyone else’s lifestyle choices. I. Do. Not. Care.

Some people say they stand for economic liberty but all that ends the moment they stick their greedy hands into your wallet expecting you to pay the consequences of their irresponsible lifestyle choices.

Rand Paul, when you eliminate the massive size of the Welfare State then let’s talk about liberty in both economic and personal sphere.

    J Motes in reply to syn. | March 14, 2013 at 10:40 pm

    Like Like Like Like Like Like Like Like Like Like Like Like. Now where is that little button? I keep clicking and nothing happens.

    PLEASE: Bring back the Like button!

    Midwest Rhino in reply to syn. | March 15, 2013 at 8:27 am

    Good points … and besides the money, there is the rewarding of bad behavior, which encourages more.

    And while those needy folks vote and there is much fraud, the lobbyists work for big monied interests.

    Hospitals and medical device salesmen need to make top dollar off the poor, so that has to be funded by the working class. That’s why Obamacare has so far double my premiums, and the worst is yet to come. They love that their customers don’t have choice on price.

    Public unions and now Obamacare function the same way … the persons paying the bill are not on the scene at the point of purchase. Politicians get the quid pro quo from unions, and taxpayers are screwed. The poor (or Medicare user, or even the insured) don’t care about price when making the purchase, so costs skyrocket. There is no “pro-choice” for the taxpayer that funds the OPM addiction.

    Co-pays for health care, and ending public union monopolies … would help. But buying politicians and buying votes will go on till there is some funding crisis, most likely.

Professor Jacobson?

This message from Sen Ted Cruz is for you and others like you, sir. It is a message I wholly endorse and agree with.

You matter.!