Monday, October 14, 2013

Does Rand Paul Believe That the Tsarnaev Brothers Couldn't Find a Church in Boston?

Dean Obeidallah  writes:

Now, I’m Muslim and I love attention - so on some level I’m happy when people talk about Muslims.  But despite what some may tell you, not all press is good press. And in the case of Rand Paul’s speech [ at the Value Voters summit on Friday] – it was awful press for Muslims.  In fact, by the end of  Paul’s talk, he had almost convinced me to hate Muslims.[...]

Paul quickly made it clear that the war on Christians is being waged by Muslims.  How did he support this theory?  He would cite isolated actions by a few Muslims in various countries.  In fact, in the cases of Boston and Zanzibar, Paul noted the actions of two Muslims in each location to support his thesis that there are up to a “100 million” Muslims who want to slaughter Christians.

Of course, there was no mention by Paul of the Muslims in Pakistan who recently gathered by the hundreds, locking arms and encircling a church to protect Christians from radicals. Nor did Paul mention that these so-called Muslim terrorists overwhelmingly slaughter more Muslims than people of other faiths.  Indeed, Muslims have been the victims of “between 82 and 97 percent of terrorism-related fatalities over the past five years.”[...]

And then Paul, in an amazing feat of intellectual gymnastics, told the audience that the war on Christianity had come to America. Where you ask? Well, Paul deemed the Boston marathon bombing to have been perpetrated, “not against our government but against us as a people, a Christian people.”

Okay, this raises a big question: Does Paul believe that the Tsarnaev brothers, who allegedly had committed that attack and who had lived for years in the Boston area, couldn’t find a church in Boston? I don’t know if Paul has ever been to the city, but there are churches everywhere.   Clearly, if those two wanted to target Christians, they could have easily bombed a church as opposed to targeting a marathon that attracts runners from over 90 countries.

But it seems that to Paul, any attack on America is an attack on Christianity because America is a Christian nation, just as Saudi Arabia is a Muslim nation.

Now in fairness, Paul did use about a minute of his speech to acknowledge that many Muslims are peaceful. He even stated that he hoped that the faith could one day return to a time where Muslims valued, “the scientific method over fanaticism.”

But then Paul’s rhetoric truly became alarming.  He warned the audience that while we wait for Muslims to return to being peaceful: “Christians should be prepared for war…” He did also add that they should, “pray for peace,” but that seemed secondary to his literal call to arms.

Paul’s speech is likely a mirror image of one that would be given by an al Qaeda recruiter.  The difference being that an al Qaeda leader would cite isolated bad actions committed by the West and claim these incidents were proof that the West was waging an all out war on Islam.

Let’s be brutally honest: If Rand Paul had given a 19 minute speech listing every bad act committed by Jews anywhere in the world under the guise of “warning” people about Jews, he would rightfully be dubbed an Anti-Semite.  Or if Paul had given a similar speech setting forth a litany of crimes committed by African-Americans in the US as defining that race, he would be deemed a racist.

But when a speech is given like this about Muslims- it’s somehow seen as simply being “politically incorrect.” No, it's not. It’s hate-just as if it would be if it was directed at Jews, Blacks, gays or any minority group.

Look, I get why Paul is desperate.  He very badly wants to be President. But it’s not going well.  He was publicly smacked down this past summer by Chris Christie, one of his chief rivals for the Republican presidential nomination.  And Paul has recently been overshadowed by Ted Cruz. All you need to do is check out Paul’s speech from last year’s summit which focused solely upon his faith and outlook on life to realize that the stakes have changed for him.

To Paul, this speech was sort of a fear mongering “Hail Mary” speech. But it failed. Paul came in fourth in the Value Voters straw poll.

Dean Obeidallah is the co-director of the soon-to-be released comedy documentary The Muslims Are Coming! His website is


  1. If I were Ron Paul, I would disown this bastard. It makes me sick that he got elected based on his last name, and has perverted everything his father stands for.

  2. Yeah, it's over for Rand.

  3. You know.. foolish me held out hope for Rand until today. I thought he was being politically friendly to our philosophical opponents to curry favor come 2016. This speech just solidly confirmed him as yet another neo-con. At the end of the day, if Chris Matthews and Krauthammer support you, that should be a person avoided at all costs.

  4. Rand Paul seems to have fallen under the mind-bending delusion that all christians are ignorant southern hayseeds like himself, who wish to be stampeded into a godless war against muslims because they hate us. I left the the denomination my family had attended for 4 generations because of the abject stupidity that emanated from the pulpit, and in prayers from the men of the congregation. A lot of the men in church prayed for war like Rand Paul, and twisted logic into a pretzel to justify the mixing of republican dogma and holy scripture. Fifty years ago lunatics like Rand Paul would have been told by the elders of the congregation to shut up and sit down, because political diatribes were forbidden in church services.

    I heard preachers in 2002 who sounded just like Rand Paul, who would state as a fact that only homosexual men, lesbians, and assorted fruits from California were against George W. Bush's push for war with Iraq. These same individuals would state that Bush was a man of god, who was lead by the word of god to make war on muslims around the world. I can still here the words spoken in prayer, "God bless this president".

    Rand Paul is making it abundantly clear that he is a hired mercenary who is desperate beyond all reason to prove to the neocons that he has completely disowned his fathers libertarian legacy.

  5. What is interesting is what Rand Paul would not say, The government lets the security threat in through the front door (Rand Paul is actually good on the Refugee Racket) as it pretends to justify the surveillance state to keep the "diversity" myth alive. The critic here doesn't even bring the obvious up.

    Thank goodness Paul bombed this speech--maybe he will pursue a better line of tactics that focus on foreign policy.

  6. I have to agree with the posters above. You would think Rand would be something of an improvement over Ted Cruz, but Cruz at values voters (and elsewhere) was focused on the evils of Obamacare and sticking it to Obama on the debt ceiling, while Rand did his imitation of Dick Cheney. Sorry to say because I loved his dad, but Rand is a dud.

  7. I am no Ted Cruz fan, but at least at values voters (and elsewhere) he was talking about repealing Obamacare and sticking to Obama on the debt ceiling, while Rand was doing his Dick Cheney imitation. Of course, Cruz totally slammed Rand in the value voters straw poll. Rand just doesn't get it. If he wants to go anywhere, he needs to embrace his father, not distance himself from him.

  8. The spin this guy puts on Paul's speech is quite a bit different from the actual speech, which you can read here: ( Paul's main point is that U.S. tax dollars should not be given to governments or groups that commit or tolerate violence against Christians. I think most Americans would agree with that. I do. Also, though he criticized what he called "a fanatical element of Islam," he did not advocate waging war against anyone. In fact, he said: "But we must also re-examine our policies because military action can, at times, actually enable and empower Radical Islam. In Egypt, Libya and Syria it is still unclear whether war brought us regimes that are more friendly or less friendly to America." This is a subtler version of his father's "They are over here because we are over there." Flawed as Rand may be, I think he would be less likely to go to war than any president in modern times, maybe even going back to Coolidge.

    1. Oh puhleez, "subtler version," Rand throws as much reprocessed BS in his speeches as possible, so clowns like you can pull quotes out of context.

  9. Rand hates radial Islam, so should every person who have a functioning brain. Rand Paul 2016

    1. I hate radical Islam.
      I also hate the son-of-a-bitch state that has continued to poke into that hornet's nest with a stick for decades, up to and including supporting terrorist-backed rebellions.
      Any person with a functioning brain would stop falling for a guy that can't make up his mind about what the TRUE purpose of a government is. The protection of rights and liberties, and nothing else (if you are a small government guy)