Rand Paul

Does Rand Paul Really Want to Imprison People for Attending Speeches?


Several commenters have wondered why no one here* has noted Rand Paul's troubling remarks on The Sean Hannity Show last Thursday. Speaking for myself, I did not want to say anything until I heard the full context of his comments, beyond the 38-second clip cited by Think Progress, New York Times columnist Paul Krugman, and other leftish critics in the last day or two. Having listened to more of the interview (which is available in its entirety on Hannity's website to "insiders" who plunk down $1.95, plus $5.95 a month until you remember to cancel your membership), I can't say it makes the Kentucky senator, whose principled criticism of the PATRIOT Act I praised a in my column yesterday, look much better. Hannity asked Paul about Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's comments on his attempt to restrict the government's access to gun records under the PATRIOT Act. Reid suggested that Paul's gun-record amendment would help terrorists obtain weapons, and he mentioned the 2009 shooting spree at Fort Hood. Here is how the conversation went after that (emphasis added):

Paul: The Fort Hood shooting occurred with the PATRIOT Act, and so you have to ask yourself, "How did we fail?"…People…were mentioning that this man was either unstable or was radicalized to a radical form of Islam; people knew that….We need to target our resources towards people who would attack us and not spend time searching and patting down sick people at the airport.

Hannity: You see, now you've set yourself up to be called a bigot because now you want to profile people at the airport. You can't win, Rand. I mean, they've got an answer for everything. 

Paul: But here's the thing, Sean: 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 indirectly have to 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. 

Hannity (sarcastically): Now, wait a minute. You would profile a Yemeni exchange student over a 6-month-old baby being patted down at the airport? I mean, that's outrageous.

Paul: Well, here's the other point: I don't want them looking at all 100 million gun records. But I do want them going after, for example, let's say we have 100,000 exchange students from the Middle East; I want to know where they are, how long they've been here, whether they've overstayed their welcome, whether they're in school. And I would rather devote resources to that I would patting down 6-year-old American kids at the airport.

Hannity: You know what that's called?

Paul: I call it prioritizing.

Hannity: No, it's called common sense.

At that point Hannity moved on to Medicare.

Paul starts out making a defensible point: that if the government is going to screen passengers at the airport, it should focus its attention on people who seem especially likely to pose a threat, as opposed to little old ladies and preschoolers. And yes, if you knew that a particular traveler was a huge fan of Anwar al-Awlaki, you might want to scrutinize him a little more closely than a businessman from Peoria. But Paul goes completely off the rails when he suggests that merely attending "radical political speeches" is "an offense that we should be going after," one that justifies deporting or even imprisoning someone. (On what charge?) That does not sound like the same man who the day before insisted that we can "capture terrorists and protect our liberties at the same time" and who the day before that challenged conservatives and progressives by declaring that "if we do not protect the entire Bill of Rights, we are not going to have any of it." It's not surprising that Hannity did not press Paul for an explanation, but Paul had a chance to clarify his position and did not. You would think that a self-identified defender of civil liberties who goes on a nationally distributed radio show and hears himself suggesting that people should be imprisoned for attending speeches would be in a hurry to explain that is not what he really meant.

*Addendum: While I was busy transcribing Hannity's show, Mike Riggs was busy emailing Rand's office, asking for an explanation.

Update: Commenter Zach notes that Paul had this to say on today's Mandy Connell Show, which is carried by WHAS in Louisville: 

It is against the law to promote the violent overthrow of the U.S. government. It's against the law to promote violence against the president. We put people in jail for promoting violence through words against the president…and…for promoting violent overthrow….That's not a protected form of speech….

I was talking about what you would use…in order to target and in order to get a warrant….What I don't want is the PATRIOT Act trolling through everyone's records and saying if you go to a political speech or a political rally I disagree with, we're going to throw you out of the country….

Let's say that the police or the FBI or the CIA is investigating a group in Pakistan, and that group in Pakistan has made 25 phone calls to somebody in the United States. That to me is a warning sign, and probably enough to get a warrant. Say they also find that person is going to a radical Islamicist who is promoting the violent overthrow [of the U.S. government] and promoting the planting of IEDs to kill our soldiers. I think that is another warning sign that that person is a potential terrorist. Then I think you go to a judge and ask for a warrant.

The ultimate result could be deportation. We also have a lower standard for deportation than we do for…U.S. citizens. U.S. citizens cannot be kicked out of the country. But if you're visiting…here on a student visa, you have to report periodically to the authorities where you are, that you're in school; you can be deported if you're not in school when you said you were in school….Sixteen of the 19 hijackers were here on a student visa; they should have been deported because they were not following the rules….

All I'm saying is that attending a rally where you call for the violent overthrow of the United States—one, it's against the law to say that, but attending the rally would be supportive evidence for a judge. 

Paul has managed to construct a clarification that is alarming as well as reassuring. Instead of saying that he misspoke, he seems to defend the idea that people should be imprisoned for advocating violence. But in the 1969 case Brandenburg v. Ohio, the Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment prohibits the government from criminalizing "advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action." That test is very hard to meet in practice, and an anti-American speech by a radical imam is unlikely to qualify unless his listeners immediately go out to plant bombs. In any case, people who merely listen to the speech have not committed any conceivable offense by doing so.

Paul does seem to disavow that idea, saying people should not be deported (or imprisoned, presumably) simply for attending speeches. Rather, he says such evidence, together with other information, might be the basis for a warrant application in a terrorism case. It's not clear whether he means an arrest warrant or a search warrant, but the suggestion as he now explains it seems unobjectionable, though inconsistent with what he said on Hannity's show. It is hard to tell exactly what he meant to say, since in both interviews he conflates several different scenarios, including airport screening, search warrants, deportation for violating student visa rules, and both listening to and giving radical, violence-promoting speeches. But at least he has made it clear that he does not favor punishing people for exercising their First Amendment rights. I think.

NEXT: Does Rand Paul Believe in Freedom of Speech and/or Freedom of Association?

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. The honeymoon was nice while it lasted.

    So what’s ole Gary Johnson up to these days?

    1. Well, with Gary Johnson, you’re not promised perfection to be disappointed. Quite a few thought that Rand Paul was fairly close for awhile, but this pops the bubble.

      How does Ron Paul feel about all this, is what I’d like to know.

    2. Jesus Christ,

      This “article” is nothing but bullshit propaganda to discredit the most libertarian Senator in my lifetime.

      I’d say you’ll are a bunch of jackassess if it wasn’t so obvious that you’re all tools of for the establishment.

      1. Thanks for that civil and well-thought out rebuttal, Josh. Since my post was made long before the “clarification” came, and it sounded like he was advocating throwing people in prison for listening to the wrong type of message.

        Let me throw a “No True Scotsman…” at you. I’m willing to bet a lot of libertarians have flirted with language in posts, or visited websites, that talk about a revolution against the statist gov’t. So there…we’re targeted.

        1. “Flirted” with language? I’ve totally fucked with language about a revolution against statist gov’t, then cum in its hair.

          1. P.S. to Rand Paul: the above was protected free speech under the First Amendment. Quit being a douche and admit you were wrong.

            1. You and me both, Prole. Half of us on these message boards could be hauled in for language “threatening to overthrow” the junta er I mean, gov’t.

              1. Especially when you consider the number of mass murders committed in the name of Libertarianism. If even 1% of Libertarians were violent, that would amount to at least a half dozen potential mass murderers.

          2. Something about cum in hair? I need some gel

      2. I don’t think this is bullshit propaganda. Rand has shown himself to be not totally on board with all libertarian freedoms. I am disappointed about that.

        That being said, I’m MUCH more concerned about people who are today right this second working furiously to restrict citizens’ freedoms than I am about Rand’s musings about what he might do about immigrants speaking about government overthrow.

  2. If a visitor to the US is attending speeches by Anwar al-Awlaki, then he can go back to where ever he came from.
    There is no need in allowing those people to stay in the US, deporting them is simply common sense.

    1. You keep focusing on using the word “visitor”. Where does Rand say this? He specifically speaks of deportation (which implies visitors) and also prison, which could be anybody, including citizens. Such as the Ft. Hood shooter.

      1. Jim is correct.

        As a Constitutional absolutist, I recall that the First Amendment that the constitution is quite clear in this area, “Congress shall make no law….”

      2. That’s about the shape of it.

      3. For certain offenses non-citizens can be held in prison and then deported after their sentence is over; perhaps that’s what Paul was referring to?

        Not that it makes it much better, of course, but it’s possible he wasn’t expanding this to cover citizens.

        1. That’s probable, given the context. All the same, I’d rather not institutionalize mass incarceration of immigrants with awry political views, if it’s all the same to Mr Paul.

  3. They should be deported or put in prison.

    Really, when you think about it, the world outside the United States is a kind of prison, so maybe he was being redundant stating deportation. Which is only half as bad.

  4. Wow, I’m actually shocked, I’ve liked everything I’ve heard from Rand up to this point. Deporting someone for attending a speech is despicable, if Hannity had any integrity at all he would have challenged him on this. Ron really needs to have a long talk with Rand, good God…

    1. …if Hannity had any integrity…

      There’s the flaw in your reasoning, right there.

    2. Why would Hannity challenge him? He fucking agrees with what Paul said. Hannity is a fucking ape.

      1. Yeah, let’s go get that Mother Fucking Hannity. Let’s murde…oh…hello officer, that’s a nice gun you ha[BLAM]

      2. And a great American.

    3. If Hannity had any integrity at all he would not have his own show on Fox News.

      Although this is less about integrity per se, and more about a total disregard for the principles that are supposed to make us better than the guys giving those speeches.

    4. …Hannity…challenged…

      Thanks for the chuckle. That made me laugh to the point where it was audible to others.

  5. To be fair to Rand, he might just have been listening to the good liberals who criticized his viewpoints last year when he claimed to believe that racist business owners have the right to peaceably assemble only with members of their same race.

    Maddow, you fucking whore, look what you’ve done!

    1. the issue is NOT assembly, rather exclusion.

  6. I’m aware he has none Jim, was just making a point lol.

    1. was just making a point

      See, that right there is what Jim was on about…:)

      1. I’m convinced we’d all hate eachother if we met in real life, because we’re all so freaking snarky. It’s bad enough that it barely translates on the net, but get all of us smart-asses in a room, with a lot of booze, and look out : D

        1. FUCK YOU, JIM!!!!

          Actually, I bet it’d be a hoot. I’m thinking Reason Cruise sometime. For serious…

        2. That’s what the weed is for, Jim.

        3. Alright, I laughed at both of those comments. A Reason Cruise sounds like a good idea; we could stop at Amsterdam before it becomes worthless.

          Reminds me of a thread a few months back, where somebody said we needed to be more civil, and the first comment was insulting to the original poster, and to which someone replied, “FUCK YOU SHITHEAD, he said to be more fucking polite!” This stuff is gold.

          1. You need to go back and look in the archives at threads from, say, 2008 (also 2007 and 2009 before threaded comments). There was a lot more of this type of gold then.

            1. Yo Epi, fuck you

          2. To each his own. For me, humor by contradiction got old around 8th grade.

        4. Forget real life, I already hate you.

          1. I was hating Zoidberg Jim before it was cool!

            1. Someday I aspire to have Epi hate me as much as Rectal. I have a long ways to go, methinks.

              1. To hate rectal, I would have to give a shit. No, Jim, I already hate you far more, but it’s nothing compared to how much I hate Warty. As for NutraSweet, it’s sort of a simmering rage.

                1. To even be mentioned with such esteemed company is good enough for me!

                2. “Marks of a True Gentleman”

                  26. Be hated by Episiarch.


                  1. I love Jim. You guys all suck ass.

                  2. Marks of a True Gentleman:

                    27. Has no idea who or what an “epi” is, but doubts any good can come of it.

            2. Does jerking off to someone’s comments constitute love?

              1. only if you come twice

              2. You all scare me.

                Group hug!!

                1. You talk like a fag! Are you a fag?

  7. I have a feeling that Rand will further clarify these remarks at a later time because I think everyone here agrees that the idea of “going after” someone because they attended a speech is ridiculous and clearly at odds with the man that gave that speech last week.

    I think (hope?) he just misspoke and more specifically meant to say that if an immigrant from the middle east who overstayed his visa is going to al-qaeda meetings in NYC then we should be worrying about them instead of old ladies at the airport.

    But I agree that is this really was what he meant then, well, crap.

    1. Even weirder, Rand wants to deport/imprison the person attending the speech, not the person giving the speech.

      1. The tide comes in, the tide goes out. You can’t explain that…

        1. Sorry, but I just had to.


          Ohh, this has lots of equations. Who’s feeling nerdy?

          1. You could have simply wrote:

            The MOON!

      2. See. The Constitution dosen’t say anything about freedom of hearing, only freedom of speech. It’s brilliant.

        1. All the more reason for a freedom of communication amendment to clarify things.

          1. What’s that supposed to mean?

        2. Already covered in “Zorro, The Gay Blade”.

          Captain Esteban: Arrest that woman! Now!
          Charlotte Taylor Wilson: No, wait! Isn’t this the village square, where according to law, everyone is allowed to speak his or her mind?
          Captain Esteban: You’re right, Se?orita. [yelling to the crowd] The woman is allowed to speak! But arrest anyone who listens.

      3. The ones giving the speeches are provacateurs.

    2. Yeah, it would be one thing if he just meant that those are more likely to be the sorts of people that belong in prison or out of the country, so we should keep tabs on them to see if they ever actually want to act on that.

      But, he probably meant exactly what he said. Oh well.

      1. Sounds like a great plan. We should send the FBI, CIA, NSA, etc to investigate this. Then 30 years later, it’ll turn out that 80% of the people at those rallies and almost all the ringleaders worked for the various intelligence agencies.

        1. You’re referring to the Communist Party in the 1950s, aren’t you?

        2. Keeps em out of trouble.

  8. Slight TJ – is it wrong that I want to bang Mary Katharine Ham AND Margaret Hoover, preferably at the same time?

    I don’t think it is, but I want to get some other opinions.

    1. Banging is such an ugly word for that particular pleasure. But why not stir in Julie Banderas for the tri-fecta ?

    2. Get some S E Cupp in there too.

    3. They’re repulsive in the same way Stepford Wives are. The looks of the spokesbimboes that Fox employs ought to tell you something about what Rupert Murdoch thinks of both the sexual perversions and intelligence of Fox’s audience.

      If that’s too oblique for you, Fox hires moronettes that morons think are good looking so the morons will watch the advertisements.

      Everyone is happy, especially Rupert Murdoch who gets to tell more “stupid American” jokes to his friends from the old days.

  9. I’m more concerned that he was on Hannity. That’s the lowest of the low.

    1. Hannity is indeed the hack of all hacks. He is beyond unlistenable/unwatchable. I listen to the radio a lot, and his show is a “must miss”.

    2. Yeah, going on Hannity is worse than going on O’Reilly, I think. But the lowest of the low is, of course, James Lipton. You know this, Warty.

      1. Without Lipton we wouldn’t have the awesome theme song to Thunder Cats

        Look it up dude.

        1. I had heard about that before, actually.

          So, cap l:

          What is your favorite word?
          What is your least favorite word?
          What turns you on?
          What turns you off?
          What sound or noise do you love?
          What sound or noise do you hate?
          What is your favorite curse word?
          What profession other than your own would you like to attempt?
          What profession would you not like to do?
          If Heaven exists, what would you like to hear God say when you arrive at the Pearly Gates?

          1. Chisel
            City bus rides
            Underwater welder
            Chinese WoW player
            Don’t worry, we don’t allow no moozlims or jezuz freaks here

          2. Does he really ask those same questions? It’s been a while since I saw that show; it sounds terrible.

          3. Fuckbooger.
            What doesn’t?
            What doesn’t?
            The last gasp of a dying enemy.
            The grunt of a redneck’s false epiphany.
            Fuckbooger. Pay attention, dimwit.
            Tard puncher.
            Anything involving other humans.
            “Oh, shit. It’s that asshole.”

            1. I approve of all of both of your answers. And yes, he asks all those questions.

            2. Tard puncher is more of a hobby, than a profession.


          4. sesquipedalian
            Orgasms on Ac/Dc
            People full of shit talking
            Anything in the fuck or cock category
            Helicopter Pilot
            Telephone Sales
            I would like God to shut his fucking piehole and not make a fucking bit of noise until I was done telling him what I had to say.

          5. cunt muffin
            clever jackassery
            unclever jackassery
            the noise that Quickbooks makes when you delete something
            babies crying
            cunt muffin
            any form of interaction with the general public
            hey there, cunt muffin

            1. I need more of these. Tulpa, why don’t you try, but challenge yourself by not using ‘math’ or ‘fetuses’ for any of your answers.

              1. You know, if I didn’t habitually search for my own name on the threads, I would never have found this.

                1. What is your favorite word? DISCOMBOBULATED
                  What is your least favorite word? SHUNT
                  What turns you on? PEANUT BUTTER
                  What turns you off? POTATO SKINS
                  What sound or noise do you love? RAINFALL
                  What sound or noise do you hate? STYROFOAM RUBBING
                  What is your favorite curse word? ****
                  What profession other than your own would you like to attempt? PORN STAR
                  What profession would you not like to do? SCHOOL BUS DRIVER
                  If Heaven exists, what would you like to hear God say when you arrive at the Pearly Gates? YOU WERE RIGHT ABOUT CON AIR.

              2. I’m confused about the “curse word” — is it supposed to be universally recognized as a curse word or something you yourself say when you feel like cursing?

                I don’t curse away from my net persona…I had taken up “mingia” in college in imitation of an Italian friend of mine before I was informed that it was just the F-world in Italian. So I transitioned to “monongahela” because it was similar and a familiar word from my geography hobbies (I was at Tulane at the time and never expected to wind up in Pgh).

                1. There’s a good eyetalian one that I have heard many times around the house growing up.

                  I don’t know the spelling, but it is pronounced buf un ‘gol, and can mean a few things, like:

                  you’re fucking wrong, get away from me
                  you’re fucking crazy, get away from me
                  are you fucking serious?, get away from me,

                  and finally

                  get the fuck away from me.

                  1. “vaffancul” (also, “vaffanculo”)

                    1. Find this:

                      yoi boishamoy govnade

                2. You must mean “minchia”, from the Sicilian for “cock”, “penis” (cf Frank Zappa “Tengo na minchia tanta”, “I have a big dick”).

                  1. What is it about potato skins?

                    1. You’ve obviously never done it on a pile of potato skins.

                  2. Yeah, I’m sure I have the spelling wrong.

                    1. No, you’re right, there’s nary an ‘e’ in the word POTATO.

                    2. Can I change my turn-off answer to “limited indentation in blog comments”?

                  3. But that makes sense, since “fuck” was apparently the Old English word for “penis” before the Norman invasion.

          6. Regodamndiculous
            Sleeping/unconscious hot chicks
            Reason comments
            The little *gasp* when she realizes where I’m going…
            Pimp/drug dealer
            “You were right about me…tell your sister…you were right”

    3. Hannity is a GOP shill.He has a really large audience. It is good politics to get those people to think you are a “solid conservative”. I’m not defending Senator Paul’s remarks, just his decision to repeatedly engage the “Hannitized”.

  10. I approve!!!

    1. So this is about me and Mary Katharine and Margaret, right?

      1. Huh ? Did you say something ? I was thinking about Julie Banderas.

  11. Sure as hell is 🙂

  12. Paul starts out making a defensible point: that if the government is going to screen passengers at the airport, it should focus its attention on people who seem especially likely to pose a threat, as opposed to little old ladies and preschoolers.

    If we can agree that TSA groping is merely security theatre and that actual terrorists would likely change tactics in the face of profiling, then why is this stance defensible.

    Say I’m a big fan of Jacob Sullum, should I be preemptively screened for narcotics.

    Don’t forget, libertards, that our beliefs are as unpopular to some as those radical moozlums, not to mention there is plenty of violent rhetoric going around loserdopian circles (think of a Balko nutpunch thread).

    1. All true, but the difference is, we’re right about everything that we say and believe, even the positions like abortion and min v. an that we don’t all agree on. So that makes it OK.

      1. And here I thought that the first reply to this comment would be regarding my olde tyme spelling of ‘theater’.

        1. I tend to still spell it that way myself (theatre).

          1. I find myself using a lot of British English spellings. To this day I cannot bring myself to spell arguement without the 1st e. “Argument” is just wrong!

  13. I understand where Paul is coming from — advocating the violent overthrow of the U.S. government is one of the forms of expression the SC allows the government to prohibit, so he figures, people attending that speech deserve scrutiny for their likelihood of taking the speaker’s advice.

    Personally, I’m not sure where I stand on advocating the violent overthrow of the government. I think evils are yet sufferable, so I wouldn’t explicitly advocate it, but I can see how folks can also find its evils no longer sufferable.

    I don’t agree with him, but I don’t see it as a huge betrayal of libertarian principles, if the speaker’s subject matter is actually advocacy and not just radical content. And remember, like his father, he’s still a Republican.

    1. actually, i would prefer not to get into a long discussion on brandenburg (the governing SCOTUS case), but in brief “mere advocacy” of such violence does not meet the standard to make the speech criminal

      the wikipedia entry on the current case law is actually quite good.

      1. Exactly. Where did he hear that advocating violence isn’t protected?

        1. I thought I had read that in US Code, I could be wrong. Like I said, I disagree with it anyway. I was just conjecturing as to where he might be coming from.

          1. it very well may say that in the US code. when i was in MA, there was a law that said “blaspheming the name of god” was a crime. both are unconstitutional, though and not enforced.

    2. I would think there would have to be a significant chance of violent unrest actually happening as a result of such speech before the state’s public safety interest becomes compelling enough to restrict free speech.

      The chances of unrest actually happening in the US due to a Muslim cleric’s fiery denunciations of America are roughly zero.

      1. you don;’t have to conjecture. there is a 3 prong test under brandenburg

        1. Lots of friends listen to Endless Love in the dark.

  14. What about people who visit Reason.com, or (gasp) LewRockwell? To be fair, Rand didn’t just say “attend radical speeches”, unless those speeches call for the “violent overthrow of the government”, although, how do you know ahead of time what the speaker will say, and why should you be accountable for it anyway?

  15. He clarified his comments.


    3rd hour of today about the 14:00 mark.

    1. Is there an excerpt or transcript available somewhere?

    2. He doesn’t back away from what he said at all. In fact, he asserts that advocating violence isn’t constitutionally protected, which is just untrue. Then he pontificates (as he tends to do sometimes) and dodges the question.

      1. this is correct. As the scotus EXPLICITLY said in the relevant case law “mere advocacy of violence” does not make speech criminal.

        1. According to Brandenburg some advocacy of violence is, and some isn’t.

          1. correct. but MERE advocacy isn’t

            again,there are three prongs. imo, anybody who cares about free speech should know that case inside and out

  16. Does anyone here really think, given what we know about Rand, that he was speaking about citizens of the U.S. However right he is, I think it’s clear from his previous stances, his using the work “deport”, and his subsequently discussing people here on student visas, he was not speaking about U.S. citizens. I think he owes an explanation either way, but I can barely speak coherently myself the little I’m required to, and it wouldn’t surprise me at all if he accidentally didn’t say what he meant. It would, however, shock me if he was referring to U.S. citizens.

    1. Just listened to Free Man’s link. It sounded like he was referring mostly to non-citizens, but he did seem to agree with whatever law forbids the activities in question for citizens, or at least acknowledges it. He did seem to emphasize those activities should be examined as a basis for warrants rather than them being jailable offenses on their own. I don’t really know, just felt like I should acknowledge I might have gotten it totally wrong.

  17. I am ashamed that you guys gave into rather’s demands. I guess she runs two blogs now.

  18. He’s laying the groundwork for a right-wing plot to deport Obama based on the fact that the Prez used to attend sermons from the right Reverend Wright. Just you wait…

    1. So it’s all good then.

  19. Everyone has brain farts. I wait till his follow-up before making final judgment. But it looks pretty bad . . .

  20. Well, the discussion extended out of profiling in airports, so I think what he was trying to say is that you should profile people who are attending radical political speechs. The “put in prison” bit was a misstatement that he’s likely to retract, I’m going to guess.

  21. Remember when he was opposed to the “Ground Zero Mosque”?

    1. Yes, but he did not approve of coercive measures to keep it from being built. While it’s despicable to opine that people shouldn’t build a place of worship wherever they want on their own property, it’s more despicable to advocate coercion to prevent them from doing it.

  22. This sounds pretty bad, but I’m sure Rand will retract/clarify/recalibrate it soon enough.

    Keep in mind though, that BO not only says that we should detain people indefinitely without trial, but actually implements that opinion as government policy…and the lefties now all atwitter about Rand’s remark don’t make a peep.

  23. Wow, he sounds just like all those leftish critics right after that crazy shot a bunch of people in Arizona, when they were trying to blame it on Sarah Palin.

    Oh, wait, are we supposed to have forgotten about that?

  24. “…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.”

    When he said that, I assumed he was speaking within the context of airport screening–we shouldn’t be “going after” little kids at the airport, we should be “going after” people who support radicals…

    “They should be deported or put in prison.”

    That’s the really bad part.

    In his defense, he may be arguing that there’s a difference between the rights of U.S. citizens and the rights of “exchange students”, who are not U.S. citizens…

    That’s not a distinction I generally support. There are only a couple of distinctions I support. One is in voting. Non-citizens shouldn’t have the right to vote. Another is that American citizens shouldn’t be deported for committing a felony, but non-citizens probably should be deported.

    Other than that? I don’t see how or why exchange students don’t have the right to be free from unreasonable searches as the rest of us. I don’t see how or why non-citizens don’t have the same right to assembly as the rest of us.

    I can see him arguing that the government should be able to get warrants on that basis–but that isn’t what he said.

    He said they should be deported or put in prison.

    1. Ah, but the 4th amendment (like the 2nd, 9th, 10th, and the assembly portion of the 1st) pertains to a “right of the people”. One could argue these rights are intended to only apply to US citizens.

      Contrast the 5th and 6th which specify rights of a generic “person” and the rest of the 1st which doesn’t specify who holds the freedom of speech and religion, so presumably it’s meant to apply to everyone.

      1. Of course, there’s that pesky bit to the Decleration of Independence, which preceeded the Constitution and the base upon which the Constitution was built…
        “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that ALL (emphasis mine) men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

        1. DecInd is a rhetorical document and has no legal standing whatsoever.

          The Constitution actually contradicts DecInd in several places, particularly in its opinion of rebellions and insurrections (as one might expect given the differing motivations of the documents’ drafters).

    2. The separation between the two portions of the 1st amendment in particular is quite striking. They get the universal rights (speech, press, religion) out of the way before the semicolon, and only then start talking about the “right of the people” to assemble and petition.

  25. He needs to quit dodging and say what he really means – we need to have an “Islam Exception” to the First Amendment. Islam is not a race, not a nationality, not a skin color. It’s by definition what we call people who believe in a book that calls for the destruction of America and the death of all non-muslims. Freedom of speech and freedom of association should not apply to muslims at all. I agree with Paul on this, I just wish he’d have the balls to say it. Someone standing in front of the capital protesting the killing of Osama bin Laden with a “death to America, Islam will rule the world” sign should not benefit from the First Amendment. And I only make this one exception for islam, not any other group. Just an islam exception, that’s it. No slippery slope because there won’t be any slope at all – just islam. No other country would tolerate people believing in a book that requires the destruction of that country and the murder of all its citizens.

    1. There’s always another Islam, dumbass.

    2. “…people who believe in a book that calls for the destruction of America and the death of all non-muslims.”

      I had no idea the Qur’an mentioned America!

      860 years before Columbus landed on Hispaniola? It not only mention America, but that America should be destroyed too?

      Who knew?!

      Actually, I’ve read it.

      And it doesn’t say that.

      1. Does it say anything about killing infidels? Because that’s the linchpin of the argument.

        1. Most Americans are “people of the book”, not infidels.

          1. TV Guide? Guiness Book of World Records? The Dictionary?

            1. The Satanic Verses

        2. Not that it matters, because the linchpin of Bruce’s argument is that people should be coerced for their religious beliefs… and (I hope) that linchpin ain’t gonna hold shit together round these parts.

          1. Well, not around me, certainly.

          2. Not that it matters, because the linchpin of Bruce’s argument is that people should be coerced for their religious beliefs…


            And who the fuck are you to judge my religious obligation to exterminate the sub human masses?

            1. If you want to believe you have that obligation, fine. Your mind is your own.

              Once you put it into practice by attempting to exterminate people, then we’ve got a problem.

        3. “Does it say anything about killing infidels? Because that’s the linchpin of the argument.”

          The short answer is no.

          The long answer is a little more complicated–like how the Israelites killed every man, woman and child (at certain points) in “Caanan”–apparently at God’s command.

          Anyway, practice even in Medieval times had to do with infidels paying taxes. Actually, at one point, when the Muslim armies had taken over most of the Middle East for the foreseeable future, they started passing laws prohibiting people from converting to Islam. …because converting meant they didn’t have to pay the infidel tax anymore, and the state needed the revenue.

          There were other reinterpretations in practice as well. For instance, Zoroastrians were declared “People of A Book”, rather than infidels. …they didn’t revere “The Book” specifically, but the Avesta had been committed to paper by that time, so the Muslim leaders decided to include them as people of “a book”–because they had “a book”! …and they needed those people paying taxes.

          There was more to it than that, actually, but that’s the long story. Realize that Zoroastrian priests are called “Magi”, and they were said to have recognized Jesus by the Christians–and there are passages that can be read in the Hadith to suggest that Zoroastrians are mentioned there…

          Anyway, here’s one of the authoritative parts of the Qur’an:

          Those who believe (in the Qur’an),
          and those who follow the Jewish (Scriptures),
          and the Christians and the Sabians, –
          any who believe in Allah and the Last Day,
          and work righteousness,
          shall have their reward with their Lord
          on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.

          —- Sura 2:62

          I could go into how relatively tolerant the Muslims were of Jews in Spain, for instance, until the Christians took back over–forcibly converted the Jews there and proceeded to enforce that conversion by way of the Spanish Inquisition…

          …but why go through all that?

          The Qur’an doesn’t say anything about America. The Qur’an doesn’t call for the death of all non-Muslims. Somebody just made that up.

          1. That was actually pretty interesting. Money trumps all, as usual

          2. The Qur’an doesn’t call for the death of all non-Muslims. Somebody just made that up.

            Wait, are you suggesting that religious leaders would contort the meaning of their religious text, in order to coerce the masses towards a particular political view? Blasphemy!

            1. You’d think lying about what Mohammad, or worse, Allah said would be quite objectionable to Muslims who know their shit. But like all Holy Books, most adherents actually never read more than a few pages and just take the word of the person who tells it to them and that person’s interpretation or outright lies.

              It’s really just the precursor to the e-mail forward that later gets debunked but has become believed by the masses who don’t check snopes.

          3. Does your sura take abrogation into account? Early verses, written when Mohammed was relatively powerless, tended to be more tolerant. As he amassed power, Allah got quite vindictive.

            And, please, stop spreading the lie about the ‘benevolent’ Islamic conquerors of Spain. They took over. They destroyed many churches and converted others to mosques. None of this was nice.

            I suspect that you did not read the Quran if you can say “The Qur’an doesn’t say anything about America. The Qur’an doesn’t call for the death of all non-Muslims. Somebody just made that up.”.

    3. Damn, I didn’t realize that the Koran talks about the destruction if the United States, and the murder of Americans.

      That’s pretty prophetic, considering the Koran was written 1400 years ago.

  26. gotcha. gotcha. yawn.

  27. I called Rand a twat months ago. Obviously I was correct. His daddy should stomp his sorry azz….

  28. Response/explanation = weaksauce

    1. The freedom of assembly is a “right of the people” (unlike the freedom of speech and religion which are not qualified in 1A) and thus may not apply to non-citizens.

      1. …but of course it would be stupid and pointless to restrict it for non-citizens too. But, it would not be unconstitutional IMHO.

        1. You’re reading the First Amendment wrong.

          The whole fucking thing applies to everybody who steps inside the U.S., i.e. “the people”:

          “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.”

          Or are you saying that immigrants have no right to petition for a redress of grievances?

          Your argument is as weak as that of liberals who say the 2nd only applies to militias.

          1. Then why do they not qualify the free exercise of religion, the freedom of speech, and the freedom of the press at all…but then stick that “right of the people” in front of the assembly and petition clauses?

            This has nothing to do with the argument about militias in 2A; the claim there is that the purposive clause limits the right, which is an entirely different argument. In fact, if we want to go the reductio route, if “the people” includes anyone who enters US territory, then the federal government was wrong to infringe the right of the British soldiers in the War of 1812 to keep and bear arms.

            1. The British soldiers in the War of 1812 had the right to keep and bear arms if they had deserted and acted as private citizens on American soil. It was more the “wearing uniforms of a hostile government at war with yours and burning down Washington D.C. and shooting members of militias” thing that was the problem.

              Such soldiers of a hostile power are one of the illicit uses of weapons that the 2nd amendment is meant to protect against when it says, “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State”.

            2. The Bill of Rights applies to everyone who falls under the jurisdiction of the United States. Anyone who is in this country, and subject to it’s laws, are protected by the Constitution.

  29. We need to make sure that Senator Paul hears our displeasure with this comment. But I think it is an overreaction to suddenly abandon support for him. He is one of the few defenders of liberty left in Washington.

    1. what is hilarious is that if any member of the executive branch, god forbid somebody in law enforcement, heck… if practically anybody except rand paul (or his dad) had made this comment on hannity, there would be a metric assload of posts about what a traitor to the constitution that person was, what a horrible person, that they were a statist, bla bla bla

      think about it. imagine the head of the FBI was on hannity (hannity is a moron btw) and said the exact same thing rand paul said to hannity

      the level of paul worship here, though… well…

      1. True enough, but I think that would be a mistake too. I think we have to look at a person’s positions and actions as whole before we write them off, and that includes the head of the FBI. And As I said, we should always be ready to dissent when our public officials make mistakes.

        1. right. and that’s my point. there are entirely different responses depending on whether the person is persona non grata here or not.

          what rand paul said is pretty fucking amazing. there would be all sorts of frothing at the mouth histrionics if somebody else said that. check out other threads here. it happens all the time over shit that hasn’t been remotely vetted or anything.

          if a witness at a scene says anything that fits the metanarrative, it’s full frothage ahead. vetting? considering both sides? riiiiiiiight

          1. Uh, I’d say we’re being pretty hard on him. Hard enough that Josh decided to chide my original post up above.

            That being said, one has to allow for mistakes. I’m not upset that Obama said one thing against liberty. I’m upset that he says something against liberty every time he opens his fucking mouth.

            Rand has enough of a good track record so far that while I award him demerits for this, he isn’t on the shit-list yet.

      2. Actually I think it would just be ignored entirely. The only reason people are making a big deal out of this is because it’s Rand Paul. Two weeks ago he’s filibustering the Patriot ACT and now he says something dumb on Hannity. I’m going to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he didn’t really mean what he said, at least in it’s entirety. I suppose what’s more important is how he votes. He voted against the Patriot Act. Good enough for me.

        1. I agree. Rand has developed enough cred, with concern to civil liberties, that he deserves the benefit of the doubt.

          I’m giving him a pass, until he does/says something that appears to reinforce this statement.

  30. The tone of his response was pretty bad too, aside from the comment. He seemed annoyed people were even talking about it.

    1. Asking him to defend his position that we shouldn’t have the CRA really got his panties twisted. In retaliation for the unmitigated gall of a reporter asking him to defend his policy position, he decided only to talk to party ministers like Hannity. Yeah he’s real big on the first amendment.

      1. I probably didn’t notice as much because I agreed with him on the CRA. But in this case he said “the people on the internet saying this are obviously my political enemies” in the second interview. So REASON mag is an enemy of Rand Paul? Jesus, grow up Man.

        I still support him, and I doubt he actually believes people should be imprisoned for attending or even giving speeches. But still, this isn’t encouraging

  31. So if I go to a speech were some wacky nut says something like “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants”, I should be at risk of imprisonment if Big Bro thinks that is a call to violence?

    I think I’ll pass on Rand Paul, thanks.

    1. it’s also the ULTIMATE strict liability crime. i mean how the #$(#$( can you control what the speaker is saying? if justin bieber starts spouting “death to america” shit at his next concert, we’d have to imprison 20,000 teenage girls!

      1. If it’d make ’em shut up, I’m all for it.

      2. And where will we be storing these 20,000 young women…? *gets notebook and pencil*

  32. “…in both interviews he conflates several different scenarios, including airport screening, search warrants, deportation for violating student visa rules, and both listening to and giving radical, violence-promoting speeches. But at least he has made it clear that he does not favor punishing people for exercising their First Amendment rights. I think.”

    I’m not a lawyer or constitutional scholar, but it seems to me that his reinterpretation fails the probable cause stipulation for issuing warrants in the Fourth Amendment.

    I just don’t see how listening to a speech can constitute probable cause.

    I think the man just spoke without thinking about what he was saying. I’ve seen him get flustered before. I thought he got flustered when he was on David Letterman too.

    I guess politicians aren’t supposed to say they misspoke.

    1. I think it would depend on what you mean by “listening to a speech” Looking it up on the internet, probably not. Going to an actual rally or meeting and listening to such speeches, yes. We have been doing that to the KKK for decades.

      People around here are having a fit because that is what they do. Rand Paul just made himself a serious candidate and showed he is not a peachnik. Fuck Greenwald. It is not like Greenwald or any of his idiot followers would have ever supported him any.

      1. Jeebus, John, are you really saying that going to a rally and listening to people saying unusual things should be a crime, and advocating for it to be a crime makes one a “serious candidate”?

        If you’re at a meeting somewhere and I show up and give a speech that some might find objectionable, should you be held accountable for what I say, even if you disagree wholeheartedly with it? Or even if you agree?

        1. I think that would depends on the circumstances. I think the situation of someone just going to a speech and not doing anything else, is pretty unlikely. Suppose I start the “violent revolution club”. And our whole purpose is to inspire people to go out and blow shit up and destroy the government. And you come to one of our meetings knowing what it is. If you do anything to support us, give us money, help us hand out pamphlets, anything but just sit there, at that point you probably are participating in the advocating of the violent overthrow of the government.

          If I join the jihad club and start going to the meetings, I think I am putting myself in some legal jeopardy by being involved in what amounts to a criminal conspiracy.

          Take terrorism out of it. Suppose I go to a hotel room and listen to someone give a speech on he and the other three people there plan to murder his ex wife. Now, I am not a part of the plot. I just went there to hear his speech about his plans. I go home knowing they are serious, never tell the authorities and sure enough they whack is exwife. Am I in some kind of trouble? If I did so much as a single thing to advance the conspiracy, you bet I am.

          And I think that is where the disconnect is happening. Sure, only listening to the speech is not and cannot be a crime. But people are very unlikely to just listen to the speech. In reality, the guys listening to the speech are almost always participating in the conspiracy. I think Paul was thinking “yeah if some guy goes and joins the club with these assholes, they should go to jail”.

          1. Then there’s a lot of gun shows I need to stop going to around here. Because the anti-gov’t rhetoric is pretty high. Shit, most of them still sell The Turner Diaries.

            In your example, what if it’s all bluster, and the wife is never killed? You’re getting dangerously close to advocating incarceration for pre-crime. Catching them outside the home with a knife in their hands is one thing; arresting someone for blowing off some steam by saying stupid shit is quite something else.

            1. Going through the details of a plot to kill someone is not my idea of blowing off steam.

              1. Going through the details of a plot to kill someone is not my idea of blowing off steam.

                Well then thank god that we don’t base criminal law on what Tulpa’s idea about something is. I’ve gone through detailed plots to kill dozens of people, and never (and will never) go through with it. I find it to be a creative exercise. So if you want to lock me up for thought-crime, FUCK YOU.

            2. There is the problem. I agree with you that you can’t throw every jackass who says stupid shit in jail. But at the same time, there is such a thing as a criminal conspiracy. And if you run around saying you are going to commit a crime, you really can’t bitch when people and the police take you at your word.

  33. I guess politicians aren’t supposed to say they misspoke.

    They should. It’s waaaaaay better to say something like, “Yeah, I fucked up when I said that, and people gave me a lot of heat about it, including everyone on my staff, and rightfully so. I’ve thought about it, and taken their criticism to heart, and what I said was wrong. Here is what I now think …”

    then to twist and squirm and try to defend the indefensible.

    Better to be wrong once then to go on and on being wrong.

    1. “Yeah, I fucked up when I said that, and people gave me a lot of heat about it, including everyone on my staff, and rightfully so. I’ve thought about it, and taken their criticism to heart, and what I said was wrong. Here is what I now think …”

      What is odd is that you never ever see that happen.

      Well I guess you see it when some politician cheats on his wife..
      Of course that is the exception that proves the rule.

      If they can do it for something huge like some sex scandal why is it so hard to do it for a small thing?

      It should also be noted that Rand Paul apparently proved that the inability to admit that he was wrong or misspoke is not only bipartisan but libertarian politicians suffer from the ailment as well.

      1. I think if a politician would ever just say “that is not really what I meant. I misspoke”, it would actually make them more popular because they would seem human.

        1. “that is not really what I meant. I misspoke”

          That just makes them sound like a liar. They would need to come clean by saying.

          “I said that. Upon reflection it was wrong.”

  34. Sounds to me like Rand Pual is just a man and not a god…

    And he may have a point or he may be off the rails on this…but from the two statements it can only be said that he either cannot explain what he meant very well or that he is not really sure what he meant.

    Either way last month he made the best defense against reissuing the Patriot act of any Senator in congress.

    For that he gets a pass.

  35. Actually, he’s just telling you what the law is in America and other countries. You can be arrested for saying you’re going to kill the President and in some countries radical imams have been deported for say that the green flag of knuckle dragging Islam with fly over Germany or wherever.


    1. And I am not sure how a prohibition against running around saying it is okay to kill the infidel is really the biggest threat to the 1st Amendment out there. And I don’t think libertarians do the 1st Amendment any favors by arguing it means that our enemies can come to the country and advocate our deaths.

      1. I believe you when you say that you don’t understand how banning really really unpopular speech by people you hate isn’t a threat to the First Amendment.

        The problem is, the whole effing point of the 1st is to protect unpopular speech, because who wants going to ban super popular speech … at first?

        You really want the government to have the power to ban speech that 50.1% of the people who bother to show up at the polls don’t like? Are you oblivious to how that might play out for you when politicians you detest are in power?

        1. But the 1st Amendment doesn’t protect illegal speech. And last I looked it was illegal to threaten to kill people. Yeah, I do want the government to ban speech that says “I want to and encourage others to kill group X”. Do you really think that is what the 1st Amendment means?

          Yes, the 1st Amendment protects unpopular speech. No, just because speech is unpopular doesn’t necessarily mean it is protected by the 1st Amendment. How do you have a Republic if it is okay for groups to threaten to kill anyone who disagrees with them?

          We have already seen the effects of this. You effectively can’t publish a cartoon of Muhammad in this country. Why? Because jackwads like you think that jackwad Muslims have a 1st Amendment right to threaten anyone who disagrees with them with death.

          Again, you are not doing free expression any favors. In fact you are helping to kill free expression.

          1. Saying it’s OK to kill people is not the same as threatening people.

          2. Seems as though the issue centers around the listening, not the expressing.

          3. But you’re right about there being exceptions to 1A. The problem is that the amendment was written with the federal govt in mind, which was already restricted by the enumeration of powers. If it were intended to be applied to a government that exercised full police powers, it would probably have specified that threats, fraud, and perjury for example are not protected speech.

            1. That is an interesting argument. Perhaps the 1st Amendment also means that the federal government effectively has no police powers since exercising police powers necessarily infringes on the right to free speech.

              The better argument is that “abridging the freedom of speech” means something different than abridging speech. The freedom of speech implies that it is something preexisting, i.e. the common law. And certain forms of speech were never protected under the common law.

          4. Big difference between a person making the choice not to publish a picture of Muhammad, and the law making it illegal to publish a picture of Muhammad.

            The first amendment protects a person’s freedom of speech, but it doesn’t protect them from the consequences of their speech. This is why it is illegal to insight a riot. The speech of the person who incites the riot is protected, but if people act out as a result of his speech, he is held accountable for the result of his speech.

            To put this in the context of a crowd listening to a radical Muslim cleric, if the cleric tells a crowd to go out an kill Americans, and members of the crowd begin to plot how to carry out this request, then the cleric is considered an accomplice.

            Once you ban a form of speech, such as making it illegal to make a generic statement calling for someone’s death, it becomes a slippery slope. Once you make generic threats of violence illegal, the next step is making any hate speech illegal, and before you know it, everyone who publicly states that Obama is killing America, ends up in jail.

            I know you don’t think this issue is a slippery slope, but remember, we are dealing with the same government that thinks the commerce clause grants them the power to order people to purchase health insurance.

            1. The slope goes both ways. If we let people threaten death to those with whom they disagree we risk losing our civil society.

              1. Government using the rule of law, to curb individual freedom in the defense of the “civil society”, was a concept advocated by Karl Marx.

              2. This implies we have to have a civil society. If we must have one, we must have a definition of it. The civil society ranges greatly depending on which of the 7 billion people you ask at any given moment.

          5. “”But the 1st Amendment doesn’t protect illegal speech.””

            According to the Constitution, there is no such thing as illegal due to the “make no law” verbage.

            Of course, I know it doesn’t work that way in the real world. Just as it is constitutional for your 2A right to be infringed despite the amendment specifically saying otherwise.

            When you jump on the we don’t have to pay strict attention to what the Constutition says, the next thing you know healthcare mandates will pass SCOTUS.

    2. That’s a nice issue, but he was referring to the listener, not the speaker.

  36. Alhough the federal courts have watered it down, the Smith Act is still on the federal statute books:


  37. yes, he made a mistake, but here’s the difference: every other congressman wants to jail you for far less.

  38. After seeing the full context of Paul’s original remarks, it was clear to me that he isn’t advocating locking people up for going to speeches.

    He is offering a defense of eliminating the USA PATRIOT act in shorthand form. He’s saying you don’t need any of the warrantless crap to go after terrorists – just use the tools you have to get warrants. He offers attendance of speeches advocating the violent overthrow of our government as an example of the kind of evidence to use to obtain a warrant to look in to a foreign national without having to toss out all oversight with the USA PATRIOT act.

    He’s doing this in a jumbled, off-the-cuff conversation that conflates the TSA, FISA, USA PATRIOT and racial profiling – so it is somewhat understandable if he doesn’t make a nuanced or crystal clear argument.

    He clearly is not offering up a new policy proposal as some are trying to claim. This is a defense of: “get rid of the USA PATRIOT act, it sucks and we don’t even need it anyway”. A position that he surprisingly managed to get Hannity to agree with by appealing to his pre-conceived notions about the TSA going after grandma’s instead of Islamic clerics.

    1. So it was actually good politician-y talk, speaking to his audience, and all that. And his clarification only matters to us, but was important. Good.

    2. Exactly! Once the SoCons and the defense hawks understand that they can still go on hating teh Mooslooms, with out the PATRIOT act, then hopefully they will get on board.

      All Rand has to do now, is remind the Hannity Crew, that when Clinton was president, he didn’t need no stinking PATRIOT act to drop bombs on suspected terrorists in foreign lands.

    3. After seeing the full context of Paul’s original remarks, it was clear to me that he isn’t advocating locking people up for going to speeches.

      Well, I guess the reader makes the text and all, but that looks like some A-1 rationalization going on to me.

      He essentially says he wants police to do all the things that the PATRIOT act gives them the power to do. If that is an argument against PATRIOT, it sure is an odd one.

  39. “”Paul does seem to disavow that idea, saying people should not be deported (or imprisoned, presumably) simply for attending speeches. Rather, he says such evidence, together with other information, might be the basis for a warrant application in a terrorism case. “”

    How do you aquire evidence that they were at such a speech? Is the government going to be taking roll call at any gathering they “deem” dangerous. Which is pretty much all of them these days.

    In order for it to work the way Paul is saying, you must embrace the surveillance state.

  40. Through warrantless electronic surveillance, DUH!

  41. Does Rand Paul Really Want to Imprison People for Attending Speeches?

    Thanks to his clarification, the answer is, “yes.”

  42. “I was talking about what you would use…in order to target and in order to get a warrant”

    Did you miss that, neu Mex ?

    1. Did you miss that, neu Mex ?

      No I didn’t miss that.
      I read the whole thing.
      Did you?

  43. you people are trying too hard to make a case against this guy.

    if you say you are going to kill someone. Then that person is murdered. Your speech alone is grounds for a warrant to investigate you further. If they find evidence as a result and convict you, apparently half the people here would say you have been imprisoned for speech. ok whatever.

  44. Yeah, I don’t the author really understands what Rand was trying to get at here. It SOUNDS a little off, but the point he is trying to make actually makes sense. He just needs a better way to articulate it.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.