Friday, July 6, 2012

Rand Paul Wants To Know Where Every Middle East Exchange Student Is At All Times

First they tracked Middle East exchange students.

Think Progress reports on this comment from Rand Paul, when he was interviewed by Sean Hannity:
I do want them going after, for example, let’s say we have a 100,000 exchange students from the Middle East — I want to know where they are, how long they’ve been here, if they’ve overstayed their welcome, whether they’re in school.
During the same interview, RP also called for arresting those who simply attended "radical" speeches.

Think Progress again:
 ...when Paul went on Fox News host Sean Hannity’s radio show Friday to discuss his opposition to the national security law, he suggested implementing a far more serious infringement on civil liberties. While discussing profiling at airports, Paul called for the criminalization of speech:


PAUL: 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. 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.



Paul’s suggestion that people be imprisoned or deported for merely attending a political speech would be a fairly egregious violation on the First Amendment, not to mention due process. What if someone attended a radical speech as a curious bystander? Should they too be thrown in prison? And who defines what is considered so “radical” that it is worth imprisonment?
But Paul’s suggestion is especially appalling coming from someone who fashions himself as a staunch defender of civil liberties. Since coming to Congress, Paul has received praise from libertarians and liberals alike for supposedly being consistent on the issue, and he often speaks of civil liberties in speeches and TV appearances.

However, aside from his admirable stance on the Patriot Act, Paul’s record shows he’s hardly the paragon of civil liberties he claims to be, but rather is “indistinguishable from the rest of the GOP on national security issues,” noted The American Prospect’s Adam Serwer last year. He’s said he will “always fight” to keep GITMO open; has said “[f]oreign terrorists do not deserve the protections of our Constitution;” and has never taken a strong public stance against torture, staying silent most recently after the killing of Osama bin Laden.

21 comments:

  1. "What if someone attended a radical speech...?"

    Like, oh, say...our sitting President?

    At least he's living up to the name "Rand", fwiw...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nice attempt to slander Ayn Rand. Only those ignorant of what she said and did know that she never advocated infringement of freedom of speech. In fact, she said that eliminating that right is the final straw because it cuts off all possible paths towards peaceful, civil change.

      Delete
  2. He is definitely no Ron Paul when it comes to civil liberties. For elected office, all we really have left is Justin Amash in MI. Maybe Thomas Massie will be good in KY, but who knows with Rand's influence?

    The more I look at other politicians, the more I miss Ron Paul.

    ReplyDelete
  3. If Thomas Jefferson read the Declaration of Independence in the middle of town square, Rand Paul would have him imprisoned or deported?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Newt Gingrich just spoke in front of a terrorist organization, the MEK (which Guiliani, Bolton, Ridge, Dean, Rendell amongst others have.) This is a crime.

    Does anyone not think such a group should be arrested and sent down to Gitmo?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Fuck this guy. There really isn't a point anymore for libertarians to pay special attention to him since he's just your typical run of the mill piece of shit politician.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Why is Rand Paul BFFs with Sean Hannity? More and more, I am coming to the conclusion that the man is a simpleton, especially in comparison with his father.

    ReplyDelete
  7. he has proven he is now as worthless as the tea party.

    RON PAUL 2012!!

    ReplyDelete
  8. In before Randal's apologists propose that this is brilliant political strategy.

    Randal is closer to being a Bush than he is a Paul, a total fascist and psychopath.

    It is annoying to see Ron turn to the constitution too often to defend freedom, but Randal is even worse he not only ignores natural rights but also the 4th.

    ReplyDelete
  9. You people are blowing this out of proportion, all Rand is saying is that the government should keep track of which foreign students are attending which colleges, pretty basic. Rand has not introduced any anti-liberty legislation regarding this matter of the 100 bills or so he has already introduced. Rand is the REAL DEAL.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You have spoken.
      Now stick your head back in the sand where it obviously prefers being.

      Delete
    2. Your head is already in the sand. Wake up!

      Delete
  10. Rand Paul never would have even won the primary without the massive amount of funds he received from outside of Kentucky from people who thought he was another Ron Paul. Suckers.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I don't think Rand's dad beat him enough when he was a kid. Time for the old man to take off his belt.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Maybe he beat him too much... just saying.

      Not that I think that ROn Paul is that kind of person, but beating a person somehow will make them inimical to state oppression when it's an identical principle to that which the former is based upon? Heh.

      Delete
    2. Ron's spoken against corporal punishment, and said he didn't employ it with his kids.

      Delete
  12. After 9/11 Ron Paul went to the floor of the House and said we should end all immigration from nations where terrorist come from. Rest assured he wasn't talking about Ireland.

    Then in 2007-08 he ran TV commercials saying we should end all student visas from nations where terrorist come from. Again, he wasn't talking about Ireland.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FtDZZHrT8mY

    ReplyDelete
  13. Truly disgusting.

    I've never thought Rand Paul was a libertarian, but I didn't know he was a full blown sociopath.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Rand Paul is not calling for the "criminalization of speech" - he is expressing concern about thousands of Islamist (NOT just any Muslim but people who support the ISLAMIST IDEOLOGY) "students" who SHOULD NOT BE IN THE UNITED STATES IN THE FIRST PLACE. Sending people home is hardly a "criminal" sanction.

    Actually if is socialist organizations such as "Think Progress" who want to ban speech - what you call "hate speech". It is also interesting to note that there clearly is a Red/Green alliance - with socialist organisations (such as "Think Progress") openly backing the Islamists.

    If someone sincerly rejects the agenda of Islam and wishes to come to the United States because their lives would be at risk if they remain where they are (the penality for conversion from Islam being death) that is one thing. But for Islamist students to be allowed into United States is quite another.

    There is no natural right for ENEMIES to come to the United States for the purpose of destoying the United States and killing Americans. Pretending there is no such thing as Islamist ideology does not alter the truth that there is - and that it has large numbers of supporters.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This is just stupid blathering. You don't have rights based on your beliefs.

      You're arguing for positivist government. You aren't as far off from Think Progress and their friends as you'd like to think.

      Delete
  15. "foreign terrorists do not have the protections of our Constitution."
    Ignoring all other points here, in what way is this at all
    controversial, as its' usage seems to imply?
    The protections(or rights) available under the US constitution
    belong only to citizens of the US.Or,'you have rights based on' your status as an American citizen-not as a visitor, 'child of God' or anything else.Any attempt to extend these
    protections to non-citizens shows contempt for said citizenship,
    and if propagated by a member of the government(whatever 'branch')
    demands removal from office and professional and personal ruination.

    ReplyDelete

IMPORTANT: Please note, do not comment anonymously or as "unknown". Such comments will not be approved.

Either log in or use the option to add a name. You may use a pen name but use it consistently for your comments so we can understand the trend of your thinking. Note: Although there is a line to add a web address, it is not required,