Rand Paul thinks we should deport or imprison people who attend “radical political speeches by religious leaders”
Update: I have only heard the highly out of context clip, so please listen to the entire radio show before reading this article.
I based this article on the clip I heard below, not the entire clip. I think this is a great example of a “sound bite” taken out of context (at least that is the impression I get from our readers). Please give feedback in the comments section so I can write a new article about this in context! I know taking a less than one minute clip out of context can be dangerous so your feedback is appreciated!
[Youtube video removed due to copyright violation. Sorry!]
By Madison Ruppert
Editor of End the Lie
Before I heard this, I had supported Dr. Rand Paul, the Senator from Kentucky and son of presidential hopeful Congressman Dr. Ron Paul. However, hearing this kind of rhetoric coming from someone who claims to hold the libertarian views that Rand Paul purports to support is nothing short of disturbing.
Rand Paul is, or so I thought, a Constitutionalist. How are we to feel when someone claims to support these important founding documents of our nation while simultaneously showing either a complete ignorance of the documents themselves or outright deception on his part. Is Dr. Paul now taking up the neo-con Republican position?
If this is true, it would be a sad day for many people like myself who have been pleased with the work Rand and Ron have been doing in Washington.
While this is just a sound-bite and very well may have been taken out of context, this is worrisome none-the-less.
I almost find it hard to believe that Dr. Rand Paul would say such a thing as this, which clearly shows his support of the Constitution and the spirit of liberty is conditional.
Those real Constitutionalists out there would be quite dismayed by hearing a supposed lover of liberty say such a thing. You cannot be targeted for religious or political views under the Constitution. You cannot be deported or detained for attending a “radical political speech.” Why? Because every single one of the founding fathers would be condemning themselves and the future of America to tyranny if they did such a thing.
There is so much wrong with this it is hard to know where to start.
1. What is a “radical political speech”? Who determines what is radical and what is not radical? While I think someone advocating replacing the Constitution and our branches of government with Sharia law and a Caliphate would be radical, someone hearing me talk about restoring the Constitution and ending all of our imperialistic occupations might think me a radical. If I talked to a representative of the Anti-Defamation League, they would probably assume that I am some kind of radical just like I would when they talk about illegally settling in Palestine and killing those who get in their way. The fact is, radical speech doesn’t exist except in the perception of the person calling it radical. The only think I think we could all agree to be radical would be someone advocating that every single person on Earth be murdered. That is radical.
2. Why did he say “by religious leaders”? How is a political speech made by a religious leader any different than a political speech made by a politician? Since when are religious scholars banned from commenting on politics? Furthermore, his mention of Islam makes it clear that here he is talking about Islamic religious leaders. Would Senator Paul arrest a bunch of Christians for attending a speech by a Christian leader decrying the taxpayer funded eugenics program called Planned parenthood? Would Senator Paul arrest a bunch of Jews for attending a Zionist rally? Would Senator Paul arrest a bunch of New Agers talking about the “Ascension” or some such thing? All of those could be considered radical and would probably involve speeches by religious leaders. I guess we are no longer allowed to hold views found “radical” by Senator Paul or views that are based upon religious beliefs. If that isn’t an affront to the Constitution and the American way of life, I don’t know what is.
3. If such a practice were put into place, who decides what counts as a radical speech, who qualifies as a religious leader, and what qualifies as a radical political speech vs. a radical speech vs. a political speech vs. a radical religious speech vs. a religious speech vs. a political religious speech, etc.? The list could go on ad infinitum and the qualifications would change with every single person viewing the list. The fact is, the government can never infringe on our speech. Period. Maybe Senator Paul thinks that is a radical political speech and maybe I am a religious leader. I guess you should all be locked up and/or deported now!