Rand Paul Calls For Jailing People Who Attend 'Radical Political Speeches'

[Geolibertarian]

Rand's comments were in context with what Harry Reid said during the Re-authorization of the Patriot Act, about the Ft. Hood shooting...  (8:00 mark)

As was the case with 9/11 and the "underwear bomber," the Ft. Hood shooting was a false flag (see this, this and this) orchestrated as usual by criminal elements within the banker-owned "U.S." government.

And as we all know, the official stories on these staged terror attacks continue to serve as the all-justifying premise on which the entire War on Free Humanity "Terror" is based.

Thus, to refuse to openly challenge that premise is to acquiesce to it, and to thereby undercut one's own argument against police state expansion measures:

"America’s fate was sealed when the public and the anti-war movement bought the government’s 9/11 conspiracy theory. The government’s account of 9/11 is contradicted by much evidence. Nevertheless, this defining event of our time, which has launched the US on interminable wars of aggression and a domestic police state, is a taboo topic for investigation in the media. It is pointless to complain of war and a police state when one accepts the premise upon which they are based."

-- Paul Craig Roberts, http://www.infowars.com/good-bye-truth-has-fallen-and-taken-liberty-with-it-2/

Until a critical mass of Americans (including Rand Paul) stop living in denial of this simple fact, the Nazification of American will continue unabated, and all efforts to stop it will continue to end in one bitter disappointment after another.

[Satyagraha]

I have heard that Rand P :"According to his campaign website, Rand Paul is in favor of a balanced budget, for the war in Afghanistan..."
 I don't have the time today to chase this, does anyone have the goods on this, is it BS or truth?

It would be well-worth taking the time to read Rand Paul's budget: it will give you an understanding of his views and how he would appropriate funds to support those things he finds important (his priorities are key to understanding his politics). The document is linked in the post below.

Something to keep in mind as you read the following:

-- "The budget [by Senator Rand Paul] provides two years of war funding, at the President’s requested levels."

-- "The food stamp program and the child nutrition program" (cut)

-- "The Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program" (eliminate)

-- "Affordable Housing Program" (eliminate)

Source: http://campaignforliberty.com/materials/RandBudget.pdf

[donnay]

She didn't make any excellent points, she didn't even make good ones--she made comments that are indicative of someone lacks discernment, and or comprehension skills.  The ten minute segment starting at the beginning lays out "the full context", (everything after the 10:35 mark is 1000% irrelevant because the subject changes completely) and guess what?  After listening to it, it is far more damning that just the short clip posted on youtube.  Yeah, Rand Paul says some good, basic things that every American should already be aware of otherwise they are just idiots--but he also holds some VERY F*CKED UP positions as well which fully support what the New World Order wants and is implementing.
BUT, BUT, BUT--WAIT A MINUTE, SHE POSTED THIS, AND SOMEONE (ME) GAVE DONNAY THE BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT:
And I did, and everything I said was not only reaffirmed, but the grave seriousness that I already saw became monumentally more disturbing.  What you posted in what you thought would be a defense, and a rebuttal against what is revealed here, only puts the final nails in the coffin to the facts that I stated, and decimates your entire "understanding"--revealing it to be flat out incorrect.  You can choose to live your life believing lies all you want, but if you try to shove them down people's throats, I will rebuke you with hardcore truth.

"And here's the interesting thing about it.  The Ft. hood shooting occurred with the patriot act, and so you have to ask yourself, how did we fail?  And for example, I would say the reason we failed in Ft. Hood is people who were mentioning that this man was either unstable, or was radicalized to a radical form of Islam--people knew that, and that's why we need to target our resources towards people who would attack us, and not spend time searching and patting down 6 year olds."
- Rand Paul

DON'T YOU F*CKING GET IT YET?  THIS IS THE EXACT JUSTIFICATION THAT THE DOD USED TO SAY THEY NEEDED BEHAVIORAL ANALYSIS, TO JUSTIFY SPYING ON YOU ON THE INTERNET AND TRACK ALL WEBSITES YOU VISIT, BECAUSE HUMANS CAN'T DO A GOOD ENOUGH JOB THEY NEED TO BE REPLACED BY CYBERNETIC AUTONOMOUS ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE SYSTEMS.

THE FT. HOOD SHOOTER WAS A PATSY, THE ENTIRE ASSASSINATION WAS A FALSE FLAG ATTACK--THAT'S BEEN PROVEN HERE ON THIS SITE.  THE FT. HOOD SHOOTER USED TO WORK FOR THE ILLEGAL DHS.
______________________________________________________________


"And here's the interesting thing about it.  The Ft. hood shooting occurred with the patriot act, and so you have to ask yourself, how did we fail?  And for example, I would say the reason we failed in Ft. Hood is people who were mentioning that this man was either unstable, or was radicalized to a radical form of Islam--people knew that, and that's why we need to target our resources towards people who would attack us, and not spend time searching and patting down 6 year olds."
- Rand Paul

Effie Trinket,

You know, your writing is somewhat familiar.  You insult people in this forum, to make your points seem more superior or credible?  Hmm...I am not impressed, though.

I already know the Ft. Hood shooting was a false flag, I get it.  I do not think Rand Paul gets it, quite yet.  I am simply not going to say he is like all the rest of the politicians.  However, he did point it out that it happened even with the Patriot Act in place, as so many were led to believe will protect us!  I think that was a good point to bring out to people.  

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6iuzQ_XbwM

[egypt]

But isnt that illegal already? Calling for violence and such?

Calling for violence is one thing.  Acting out violence -- is another.

In the past, a crime wasn't a crime, until it was committed.  This is where the police came in -- they pursued suspects of crimes committed -- after-the-fact of committing the crime.  It is not the police's job to "prevent" crime.

Love, e

[Waltraut]

Rand Paul is different from his father, (at least as far as I can detect, from public comments). He apparently was sort of a jerk in college and holds some restrictive social conservative rules.

His father is more consistent about freedom.

[stymo1]

I'm actually surprised by what I heard on both the long and short versions of the interview. Why nobody has posted what he said is beyond me.

From article linked to on OP youtube video:
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/05/31/232182/rand-paul-criminalize-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.

[EvadingGrid]

He is a politician.

[Rebelitarian]

He had better clarify there's a big difference between listening and doing.

[birther truther tenther]

It's been a while since I commented on this forum, but I had to login for this one.

RAND-Paul is a neocon Zionist war-monger who despises poor working Americans.  I'm glad you guys finally caught on.

Geolibertarian did a good job following RAND-Paul's budget and the proof is in the pudding folks. http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=160459.msg1241690#msg1241690

 I also want to give props to Geolibertarian for his expose' on the Austrian School: http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=165679.0

Effie Trinket,

You know, your writing is somewhat familiar.  You insult people in this forum, to make your points seem more superior or credible?  Hmm...I am not impressed, though.

Effie Trinket looks like someone posing as Anti_Illuminati.  He adopted the same characteristics such as font settings, and references to bodybuilding forum, but he acts hostile toward people that Anti_Illuminati didn't.  Kinda weird.

[Satyagraha]

I think it is natural to expect that Rand Paul shares his father's political views and that's a mistake. Ron Paul has no equal, including his son. His son stands for his own political beliefs, and we have to be sure to evaluate him as a candidate on that - not on the fact that he's Ron Paul's son.

Rand Paul is not awake, that's clear.
He's afraid of the 911 boogeyman, shocked and awed into believing the official story.
Goes like this: Muslim terrorists are out to get us and they attacked us on 911.

So his budget reflects his belief that we have to fight the terrorists before they do it again.
He doesn't realize the terrorists are some of the people he's already working with in Washington DC and elsewhere.
Those terrorists aren't going to be caught by monitoring extremist religious leaders' meetings.

To catch those terrorists you have to start going to CFR, Bilderberg, Aspen, DHS, and military industrial complex conferences. 

Here's a thought: Let's "deport and imprison" THOSE guys... those people who are attending those meetings where they seek to eviscerate the constitution in continuing their complete overthrow of the US Government.
We're in a coup d'etat and those are the people orchestrating/facilitating that coup.
Deport and imprison THEM: we'd be much safer then.

[stymo1]

I think it is natural to expect that Rand Paul shares his father's political views and that's a mistake. Ron Paul has no equal, including his son. His son stands for his own political beliefs, and we have to be sure to evaluate him as a candidate on that - not on the fact that he's Ron Paul's son.

Rand Paul is not awake, that's clear.
He's afraid of the 911 boogeyman, shocked and awed into believing the official story.
Goes like this: Muslim terrorists are out to get us and they attacked us on 911.

So his budget reflects his belief that we have to fight the terrorists before they do it again.
He doesn't realize the terrorists are some of the people he's already working with in Washington DC and elsewhere.
Those terrorists aren't going to be caught by monitoring extremist religious leaders' meetings.

That is the smartest thing I've read on this thread......Thank You.

[Rebelitarian]

Yeah how about arresting people like Rick Perry, George Pataki, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama for going to Bilderberg meetings, violating the LOGAN ACT, and plotting America's downfall.

Maybe this is what he meant ?

 

[Effie Trinket]

I'm actually surprised by what I heard on both the long and short versions of the interview. Why nobody has posted what he said is beyond me.

From article linked to on OP youtube video:
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/05/31/232182/rand-paul-criminalize-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,

And THAT is unconstitutional, because "taking into account where someone's (and he doesn't specify foreigners) been traveling" is surveillance, it is violation of the person, it is violation of the unalienable right to be left alone.

you might have to indirectly take into account whether or not they’ve been going to radical political speeches by religious leaders.

That's unconstitutional as well.  And you know who agrees with Rand Paul's statement here?  Bilderberg member Robert Gates, SAIC, DHS, the CIA, NRO, et.al.

It wouldn’t be that they are Islamic.

Nice try for him to try to save face here.  When 99% of sheep Americans hear the words radical coupled with "religious leaders", their brains are going to default to what they've been indoctrinated with from MSM, and that is Muslims--so who the f*ck does he pretend exists as an enemy within the fraudulent context that there is even such a thing as religious motivated terror that threatens the U.S. that can allegedly outsmart the entire military industrial complex?  He's purposely creating ambiguity, hoping to make people think "wow, Rand Paul is saying that there might be some unnamed religious extremist group that all Americans need to start worrying about."

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.

And if Rand Paul drafted, sponsored, or co-sponsored any such legislation, he would be guilty of treason.  Notice really how insane that statement he made is--he isn't even talking about the one's GIVING THOSE SPEECHES, he's talking about the mere notion IF SOMEONE **ATTENDED** THEM. 

1st of all, no one is calling for the violent overthrow of a Constitutional Government--the elite don't have to because they've already sufficiently overthrown it when they murdered JFK (and when they passed the National Security Act in 1947 and the Federal Reserve Act of 1913).

There ARE people who are calling for the violent overthrow (as well as peacfeul, i.e. via non-compliance) of the New World Order controlled government--and guess what--they have the unalienable right to do that, but they wouldn't be allowed to post such things (violence) on most forums, including this one.

The elite obviously have a track record of using a plethora of false flag tactics and various patsies to try to divert all attention away from the elite over to 100% non-existent threats that are completely staged.

The elite are doing everything in their power to fight you from a distance, so that you will be unable to fight if it ever gets to the point of roundups, or your house being bulldozed down.  They're ELIMINATING the ability of every nation on Earth to generate sufficient electricity for the existing population, and are ramming through their smart grid prison--a monumental, direct attack against your freedom that is just as deadly as being rounded up in an Army truck, but doesn't appear that way because it's effects are long term--enslaving you over a duration instead of instantly throwing you in a prison camp.  If people don't stop the deployment of smart meters, and the deliberate destruction of the nuclear, and coal energy sector--humanity is finished.

[chris jones]

He had better clarify there's a big difference between listening and doing.

Hi Reb, yes, in a  freee nation, we as citizens can attend any peacefull meatting, despite whatever the FK topic, philosophy, etc. This is not the Joe McCarthy era, wev'e been down that road.
  In truth, just the fact he is Ron Pauls son I assumed he was on the same channel as his dad. Ya know I admit freely I have overlooked some shiit about him with the feeling, nah-he's young, his dad will set him strait.
  Last rant, I don't give a sweet Sh***t what his backup(reasoning) is, but that he stated a few more years of war funding, that statement is a belly up..He has made some good points, but he is not on his dads wave length.. FK it, we invaded and genocided, tortured,- you want a few more years paying for this shiiite. This is America, not Hitlers Nazis, his dad said it all, we sent them in, now bring em out...Thats the Paul family I want to hear from.
  
  

[WakeUpAmerica]

The funniest part about Rand Paul is that he licensed himself to practice medicine! I know that's random but I thought it was really hilarious that he created his own exam board.

[Rebelitarian]

I still say if he wants to enforce the Logan Act then I am all for it.

[chris jones]

I still say if he wants to enforce the Logan Act then I am all for it.

          Bush's grandad might have had a problem with that. I'm not up to date on this, but it seem to me this would continue to leave the door open to the big dogs, not the peons.
          This prohibits a private citizen, what about our illustrious pols and their card carrying lackeys,the billionare club...
I get your point, just that I don't beleive it would have any effect on the true source of decepetion.

[Rebelitarian]

If we started arresting Bilderberg attendees I think that would send a strong message.

Now as for attending speeches there would have to be proof of a an actual coup plot in order to act.

[RonPaulRocks]

Look, Rand is not stupid.  He is appealing to the staunch right wing war mongers.  He wants the Government to start profiling which I am all for.  But he may have gotten a bit extreme but this is what we live in now a days.  I get who Rand is appealing to. 

But who does the 'radical political speeches' the CIA to their puppet Taliban and Al CIA Duh so he is cleverly trying to turn the system against its false flag self.

[Rebelitarian]

That would be great to see in a Ron Paul Administration.  Seeing politicans getting arrested at the airport when returning from a Bilderberg meeting.

[charrington]

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) is usually described as a doctrinaire libertarian, and in many of his policy complaints, this is reliably borne out. For example, Paul is of the opinion that the Americans With Disabilities Act is an egregious infringement on liberty, when the "common sense solution" is obviously to herd wheelchair-bound workers to the first floor of every office building.

That's what Paul believes and he usually sticks to it. So I'm as surprised as the next guy to learn that Paul now believes that certain people should be jailed for merely exercising their right to assemble under the Constitution of the United States.

According to Alex Seitz-Wald, Paul's sudden shift on civil liberties all went down on Sean Hannity's radio show last Friday:

    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.

Hey, now! Suddenly we're deporting and jailing people for attending speeches? Um ...

    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?

These are good questions. I'd hate to see Rand Paul get hoisted with his own petard. (Dearie me! Am I even still allowed to talk about petards in public?)

Well, what do the courts say about the matter? Here's Glenn Greenwald:

    Indeed, the First Amendment not only protects the mere "attending" of a speech "promoting the violent overthrow of our government," but also the giving of such a speech. The government is absolutely barred by the Free Speech clause from punishing people even for advocating violence. That has been true since the Supreme Court's unanimous 1967 decision in Brandenburg v. Ohio, which overturned the criminal conviction of a Ku Klux Klan leader who had threatened violence against political officials in a speech.

See, that's what I thought. Naturally, I have no doubt that somewhere out there someone is assembled in a gathering of free citizens, listening to someone discuss the violent overthrow of the government. I'm not unconcerned about that, but the standard libertarian line I grew...
Continued...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/01/libertarian-rand-paul-free-assembly_n_869754.html

[chris jones]

            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.
           The Brits did the same thing to our forefathers and their followers, I know its an extreme comparrison, but in a small way it gets there.
            He targets on violent, OK, I get it, who is to be the judge of this.. Just how far could they take this. Nope,this remark is offensive..this could become an extreme, its unconstitutional and opens the floodgates to the DHS, DIA, CIA, FBI and the rest of the gang, party time for the big dogs.
           

[DireWolf]

The First Amendment is often inconvenient. But that does not absolve the government or its obligation to tolerate speech.

                            Justice Anthony Kennedy
                             US jurist (1936-)


I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small degree of it.

                            Thomas Jefferson
                              (1743-1826)
                                To Archibald Stewart, 1791