The irony runs deep when it comes to Senator Rand Paul and the renewal of the Patriot Act. The staunch defender of the Constitution, Paul spoke out against the law last week, saying it infringed upon civil liberties.
But while discussing his opposition to the bill on a radio show last Friday, he inadvertently called for criminalizing those who attend "radical political speeches":
"I’m not for profiling people on the color of their skin, or on their religion, but I would take into account where they've been traveling and perhaps, you might have to indirectly take into account whether or not they’ve been going to radical political speeches by religious leaders. It wouldn’t be that they are Islamic," said the Libertarian from Kentucky. "But if someone is attending speeches from someone who is promoting the violent overthrow of our government, that’s really an offense that we should be going after — they should be deported or put in prison."
Wonder if he counts Tea Partiers in the "radical political speech" category. And as Think Progress points out, “what if someone attended a radical speech as a curious bystander? Should they too be thrown in prison?”
The First Amendment reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Rand Paul, of all people, should know better.
Leave a Comment:
It is amazing how the Republican party is so deeply contradicted, and completely unaware of their own reflection. "But if someone is attending speeches from someone who is promoting the violent overthrow of our government, that’s really an offense that we should be going after — they should be deported or put in prison." If Rand Paul had his way, we could incarcerate over 75% of the Republican party. Furthermore, the party ignores their hooligan supporters when they behave in this manner.
Give us just one instance, Flex, of a Republican gathering where a speaker advocated the violent overthrow of the government. When, where, who. I won't ask you to demonstrate that 75% of Republicans have done such a thing -- just show us one. Then tell me of a Republican gathering where the attendees engaged in hooliganism.
Very strange. After being one of the few in our craven Congress to speak against the Patriot Act, he come out with something like this. He'll have to eat his words. As for hypocrisy, it abounds in both parties.
It's been depressing to me to watch so many supposed liberals (of whom I count myself to the left), who screamed and shouted during Bush's homicidal reign, suddenly grow silent now that Obama's in office, even though he is continuing Bush abuses. Let's not kid ourselves. Both parties are corrupt, and both contain hypocrites.
do tea party speakers typically - or indeed ever - advocate the violent overthrow of the u.s. gov, as this post appears to assert?
Crispin, they have at rallies. I've watched the videos. There's one chick in particular, New York accent, I forget her name, who's famous for this. Now you're going to make me go dig up the videos.
His dad should spank him for that. Rand Paul really should know better, especially since he's spoken so much about people's rights.
I'm convinced Rand Paul has a secret hatred for the Constitution. His "pick and choose" approach to peoples' rights is disgusting, discriminatory, racist and completely random. He has no place in making decisions for the majority of Americans.
That should be the end of rally's from Beck/Palin and co
Rand Paul is jealous. Sarah Palin, Michele Bachman and Rep. Ryan have been getting all the media attention...
He just had to do something...
The Smith Act sets penalties for advocating the violent overthrow of the US government. Nothing about listening, though. I guess Rand Paul would lock up anybody who attended a Sharron Angle rally.
We can't threaten the anonymity of large corporate political donors because it would "have a chilling effect on free speech!", but we can say "don't attend any rally where somebody might say something which might be construed as seditious or you'll wind up in jail!"--HUH?
Rand Paul lives not only in the wrong country, but in the wrong century. His time and place are AD55, Roman Empire, friend of Nero.
This "libertarian" finds no irony in seeking to be the thought police.
Where does the arrogance and idiocy end?
This is really dumb and sad.
On the sad side, it is sad that someone with so little knowledge of the workings of our system and Constitutional Law can become a Senator. The test for illegality is whether the speech in question imminently incites unlawful action. The mere advocacy of violent overthrown isn't illegal, and shouldn't be.
On the dumb side, he suggests listening to the speech should lead to deportation (clearly this is aimed at non-residents) or prison. This is just plain dopey. So lets say I go to a speech of some radical Muslim cleric or right wing militiaman. I am standing there listening and thinking, "this is as stupid as some of the stuff Rand Paul says." I don't agree with the speaker in any way.
According to Mr. Paul, I should go to prison for attending. Attending.
Madness. madness.
This guy is a terrorist and enemy of all minority groups in America...Since he has Not produced his birth certificate; I cannot confirm he is American
He should also be on the recall list -
Thank God he does Not represent California!!
I don't see what the fuss is about. You are allowed to gather piece fully To express to the government your grievances. But Being involved with a group or/and the participation of such group that promotes The Over throw Of Government in a violent way should be illegal. WE are no longer talking about peaceful groups who want change.
It makes my head hurt when people can't stay on topic. Rand Paul spoke of people attending "radical" speeches. FBI agents do that all the time.
Attending a speech is different, far different, from being "involved" with or participating in a group. And, advocating the overthrow of the government is one thing, actively working toward that end is another.
Rand Paul is a rascist plain and simple. I can't believe the good people of kentucy voted that piece of sh** in office.
We have scary people in our government...he is one...should we not test
candidates for office before they run to make sure they are mentally together?
I guess the Tea party would be a radical gathering as some of them are
constituionalists and believe they should arm themselves againist the state government. Why are voters so gullible that they can't see bad news walking before their faces . Scary days when any creep can run for office!
We have the same problem here in Texas with Rick Perry, the guy that boasted about Texas seceeding from the union until the wildfires almost burnt up the state, then whined about not getting aide from the goverment fast enough. Unbelieveable, but with all the poor politically confused people around here he's a shoe in to be re-elected if he doesn't throw his hat in the presidential ring. One can only hope..
This is what happens when you scratch the surface of these Tea Party idiots....you find that they dont really know anything about the Constitution or what it really means to be an American. Just a bunch of blowhards that make good TV soundbites. Can Kentucky recall this idiot?
How many times have you read the Constitution or reflected how much the country has strayed from what the founders had in mind or noticed the current abuse of governmental power?
I don't really consider myself a "Tea Partier" but it turns out the ideals are really, really good. Basically it's about liberty and a bunch of common sense. Which, incidentally, is a good read - "Common Sense", that is. Very wise stuff if you follow what it's saying. Or listen to it at freeaudio.org
I like it as much as the next guy when a "gotcha" moment happens to a Republican. But to be fair, this one doesn't amount to much.
Paul's use of the word "deported" tells me that he was talking about foreign terrorists, not about United States Citizens. He was very clumsy in his expression, which is apt to happen to any of us when we speak extemporaneously.
Paul is a buffoon when it comes to fiscal and social issues, but a hero when it comes to civil liberties. Let's cut him a break on this one.
Whatever Rand Paul's merits or demerits may be, he is not a libertarian. For Muller, the author of this commentary, to call him this is inappropriate. He may be sorta kinda good on some issues that overlap with libertarians; that does not make him a libertarian. Here's what David Boaz says (whose libertarian credentials are impeccable): "Libertarianism is the view that each person has the right to live his life in any way he chooses so long as he respects the equal rights of others." Here's what the Libertarian Party says: "We...hold that where governments exist, they must not violate the rights of any individual: namely, (1) the right to life -- accordingly we support the prohibition of the initiation of physical force against others; (2) the right to liberty of speech and action -- accordingly we oppose all attempts by government to abridge the freedom of speech and press, as well as government censorship in any form; and (3) the right to property -- accordingly we oppose all government interference with private property, such as confiscation, nationalization, and eminent domain, and support the prohibition of robbery, trespass, fraud, and misrepresentation."
Paul is not a libertarian by either of these definitions. He clearly supports censorship of speech; he supports the Patriot Act. Ergo, he is not a libertarian. I'm sure other readers can point out other ways that he is not libertarian. To muddle that up, as the writer has done, is inappropriate and unfair to libertarians. Words have meanings, as any writer should know, and to sling them around this loosely is just bad writing.
You can't attack Paul's Libertarian credentials on flimsy and erroneous evidence as you've done here.
For one thing, Paul blocked a vote on the Patriot Act until two of his amendments were brought that would have softened it. When those amendments failed, he voted "no" on the Patriot Act. In what sense, then does he "support the Patriot Act"?
Moreover, one poorly-worded answer to a reporter is not enough to conclude that Paul "supports censorship of speech".
Mr. Rand may or may not be an exemplary Libertarian, but we shouldn't draw any conclusion on the evidence you've given us.
Paul "the younger" must have graduated from the same colleges as Palin.
He just won Idiot of the week prize. Previous he won dumbbell of the month award. Someone should tell him that no-one really knows how stupid he is until he opens his mouth.
God help us if he is considered one of the 100 cream of the crop of this country, the milk is turning sour.
Get ready for The Brave New World. People Like Paul are not going to go away; fear will cause them to multiply. They will little by little strip away all of our rights until they have what they want; complete government control. The tragedy is deception has caused them to be blind to what is really going on.
The Brave New World is coming; Big Brother is coming out of the closet. People like Ron Paul are driven by their own fear. They fear everyone and anything that is different. Be prepared; they are not going to go away, they will multiply and chip away, little by little, at all of our "rights until we have none left".
Rand, while we're at it let us retroactively convict all of our founding fathers
Rand, while we are at it let's retroactively convict our founding fathers
What about heretics who advocate worshiping Aqua Buddha as Rand Paul does.... Should they be jailed, too?
Rand Paul is a confirmed believer in Aqua Buddha -- does he recommend incarceration for other heretics like him?