Rand Paul’s Disgusting NSA “Lynching” Comment Once Again Proves His Ignorance

randpaul2013Anyone who knows me knows that I’m not in any way a fan of Rand Paul.  I feel the guy is delusional, narrow minded and is just trying to ride his fathers coattails to a presidential run.

Well, recently he compared the NSA’s use of surveillance, and how it skips “due process,” to the lynchings of African Americans.

“There was a time in our country when we would just say, ‘Oh, people are guilty.’ One of them was when we judged the guilt of African Americans by lynching,” Paul said.  “People say, ‘Oh, that’s a dramatic comparison.’ Well that’s why we have steps and processes you go through to make sure you don’t have adjudication of guilt without a trial, without a lawyer, without a judge involved.”

Before I go any further, let’s look at what a lynching is.  A lynching is typically an act carried out by a group of people to kill an individual (or group of people) by hanging, shooting, stabbing or burning.  The cliche’ is a group of townsfolk with pitchforks and torches marching through town.

Now granted, there’s absolutely no “due process” involved in the actions of a lynch mob, but to compare government surveillance of phone records (which the Patriot Act allows for) to the act of erratic and spontaneous (often horrific) murder is simply pathetic. And then to tie it in with African Americans in some sort of insidious attempt to appeal to minorities is even more pathetic.

Let’s not forget that this is the same man who, back in April, said he would support the government’s use of a drone to kill a hypothetical liquor store robber as he exited the store—without due process.

In fact, his exact words were:

“I have never argued against any technology being used when you have an imminent threat, an act of crime going on.  If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and $50 in cash, I don’t care if a drone kills him or a policeman kills him.”

So, the act of the NSA tracking phone records is comparable to a group of people hunting down and hanging another individual, but Paul feels it’s acceptable for a drone (or police officer) to kill an individual, without due process, suspected of robbing a liquor store—because of $50.

By making this terrible comparison, he’s basically implying that all crimes are equal.

According to Paul, if someone were illegally wiretapping your phone, those actions are just as invasive to your Fourth Amendment rights as someone storming into your home and murdering a family member.

It was a sad, and disgusting, attempt to manipulate the naive emotions of those who would rather be told what to feel rather than those who choose to use common sense.

While the NSA tracking phone records of Americans (and PRISM) are topics that stir a lot of controversy, and need to be discussed, to compare that act to that of lynching African Americans just proves how small-minded Rand Paul truly is.

After all, isn’t Paul a Republican?  You know, the architects of the Patriot Act—the bill which gave the NSA the ability to do the acts which he pretends to be so “appalled” by.

He could always have ran for political office as a Libertarian, but he wanted to win elections—so he sold out and became a Republican.  Now after using their influence, money and power to get elected, he wants to speak out against something that his own party built and still overwhelmingly supports.

And again, by his very own words, he supported the hypothetical situation of killing a robbery suspect (without due process) who might have stolen a whopping $50.

To call Rand Paul’s comparison pathetic is an understatement. With these disgusting comments he has proven, once again, how out of touch he is with reality.

Allen Clifton

Allen Clifton is a native Texan who now lives in the Austin area. He has a degree in Political Science from Sam Houston State University. Allen is a co-founder of Forward Progressives and creator of the popular Right Off A Cliff column and Facebook page. Be sure to follow Allen on Twitter and Facebook, and subscribe to his channel on YouTube as well.


Facebook comments

  • Chico Gonzalez

    Even with due process, and even in backward hellholes like Texas or Mississippi, a guy convicted of simple robbery wouldn’t get the death penalty. Rand Paul is a wannabe hardass, running his mouth and trying to appeal to the conservative lunatic fringe. His foolish ideas are almost as whacked out as his father’s.

  • denise

    “Almost as whacked out as his father” Chico. I’d say Rand is leaps and bounds more whacked out. I cannot believe anyone would vote for this narrow minded ,absurd, nonsensical excuse for a leader.

    • lindylou

      RON Paul, albeit sometimes a bit ‘wingnutty” has the grace of a good sense of humor. RAND Paul is just plain “wingnutty” with no grace at all.

  • Thom Cameron

    He’s one of those guys that makes me wonder what he is doing behind the scenes that he might be afraid wiretaps might reveal
    And, you know damn well if he were President he would be using the same technology. And, if he wasn’t I’d say he wasn’t doing his job.

  • Rita McNamara Moose

    I think he’d do well with a cooking show on Fox.

  • landonthegr8

    So… Obama’s purely inaccurate and/or offensively dishonest remarks are somehow better? Check. Gotcha.

    • jonjstrine42

      And I’m sure you’d be more that willing to cite a few examples of things that President Obama has said that are in any way comparable to the inane and insane comments of Mr. Paul.
      So, let’s hear them.

      • Dan Momany

        I would love to cite one… Lets go to the Democratic Caucus in San Fran where he (President Obama) stated that semi automatic weapons were used at Sandy Hook, then he corrected himself and erroniously made a point that AUTOMATIC WEAPONS in that case were used.. He forgot to lie and corrected himself. Yes it is fact, yes it was reported by reputable sources, such as his own whitehouse transcripts.

      • davidwachtel1

        Dan- Obama’s comments were not intentional like Rand Paul’s comments. They were not anywhere near the stupidity shown by Paul. He is agreat example of a Meglomaniac in waiting. I live in KY and remember his campaign here. He had the nerve to say that drugs were not a big problem in the Eastern part of this state. He obviously never heard of Meth. The man just wants headlines not facts!

      • Dan Momany

        How is it unintentional when he corrects himself to the lie after? I would say that is very intentional lol.

      • Rei

        Because when I make a mistake and correct myself, it’s clearly because I was lying.

      • Dan Momany

        When you correct the truth with a lie and make a point to back up that lie yeah it kinda works that way…this is a direct quote from the White House Transcripts.
        “Now, over the next couple of months, we’ve got a couple of issues: gun control. (Applause.) I just came from Denver, where the issue of gun violence is something that has haunted families for way too long, and it is possible for us to create common-sense gun safety measures that respect the traditions of gun ownership in this country and hunters and sportsmen, but also make sure that we don’t have another 20 children in a classroom gunned down by a semiautomatic weapon — by a fully automatic weapon in that case, sadly.”

      • landonthegr8

        Dan, this is how all the lefty sheeple are. They can easily google all of the stuff the real flip flop king has lied about and come up with their own conclusion. But that, like all Obama supporters, is either too difficult for them to do or to accept. Don’t try to reason with these people sir. They will only try to make excuses like “he didn’t mean it” and “it wasn’t his fault”. That’s how blind they are.

  • iroots.org activism

    I think you’ve revealed that your real hatred is for Rand Paul no matter what he says. You’ve already granted his point that lynchings don’t have due process. Analysts on the left and right don’t agree with you that the ‘patriot act’ spelled out the ability to store/track all American’s cell phone/computer data. That certainly wasn’t the way the law was portrayed or intended according to numerous senators/congressmembers. The power of the NSA certainly sets up an “architecture of oppression,” as Snowden stated, that COULD be used in the future to “lynch” political enemies and blackmail officials on a massive scale. Simple thought experiment: Imagine Hitler or any other tyrant with the power of the NSA at his/her fingertips. Do you really think we’ve progressed and evolved past the point of producing evil leaders? After all, it’s not like we have drones killing 1000s of innocent civilians and a ‘legal’ framework in place to hold ‘detainees’ indefinitely without trial…I mean, that sounds like something that would happen in Cuba or the Middle East…

    • George M Forgues

      Yes, yes, yes…

  • Pitt90

    My dream for 2016 is a Rand-Cruz ticket. Nothing would guarantee an easier Democratic victory…or do greater homage to the charming legacy of McCarthy…

  • Dave Pavlatos

    Yea, him and Paula Deen can start up a cooking show on Fox and Friends.

  • Rei

    Let’s also not ignore the fact that lynchings weren’t even illegal on a federal level until 2005, thanks to conservative filibustering. .

  • Mark Strange

    As a realist one crime has obviously done more harm then the other, lynching is absolutely disgusting, looking at my emails to grandma no so much. But as much as I hate Rand Paul, the man actually has a point. Taking information with out warrant is a violation of our rights to privacy and acting upon that information is in fact trial without due process. Is it understandable, perhaps. Killing another person out of revenge is understandable too at times. Is it right, no its not. Do I think the government will stop using that technology, I can’t say I really believe that, but it doesn’t mean it should be legal and open policy? Absolutely not!!!

  • Edward Baker

    I bet he hates the fact that his words come back to haunt him time and time again ….He is a doofus…

  • mre2000

    I’m no fan of Rand Paul but you’re twisting the hell this into something its not… and BOY would I welcome another reason to dislike Rand Paul! But I think one major problem we have as a country right now is ripping everyone for what they said and how they said it… Reps and Dems alike. I clearly understand his point and I think you do too, but you’re looking for a way to spin it into some sort of racist nonsense. Thats a page right out of the republican playbook, so bravo… you’re now stooping to their level.

  • David Jennings

    Rand Paul pardon my French but you are a fucking wanker. And a mindless dribble shit as well!!!!!!

  • Joey Batz

    I’m sorry, but this article is pretty dishonest. I mean, it’s as pathetic as it accuses Rand Paul of being.

    First off, his comparison stands. He was comparing it in terms of the lack of due process inherent in both. A group of people taking matters into their own hands to act against those they “know” are attempting to hurt their country. Was it a dramatic comparison? Sure, it absolutely was. You know who said it was a dramatic comparison? Rand Paul. But it’s still an accurate one. To say “Oh, he compared surveillance to lynching black people” shows that you either didn’t understand the comparison or chose to ignore its context.

    As for the drone killing the liquor store robber, that’s a pretty silly attack on him as well. He didn’t say he supported killing thieves without due process. The person writing the article focuses on the $50–and forgets that the hypothetical robber is brandishing a weapon! It is proper police procedure to kill someone who poses an imminent threat. Now, whether the drone should be sent in a situation like this is a different question altogether (I honestly vote “no”), but the idea of law enforcement killing someone who poses an imminent threat during a crime in progress is common accepted amongst most Americans, even civil libertarians. It isn’t violating his due process in a case like this. As opposed to mass surveillance, which violates our civil rights because, amongst other things, we don’t pose an imminent threat nor have we all been observed engaging in a crime in process.
    Not only that, but even the ACLU isn’t even opposed to the use of drones. They only want Fourth Amendment protections to apply to the use of drones.

    It’s funny, the comparison to Paul recent and past statements is less dramatic than Paul’s comparisons between surveillance and lynching, yet it’s somehow so much less accurate.

    As for Paul supposed to have been supporting the NSA surveillance because he’s a Republican and they were the architects of the Patriot Act, one must remember a couple things. First, the Pauls, most notably Ron Paul, was an opponent of this since Day 1. Second, many Democrats, including Obama, are huge supporters of the Patriot Act.

    Whether you like, dislike, hate, or don’t care about Rand Paul, the fact is that the only thing disgusting in this article is its publication. The attempt to twist Paul’s words around is what’s truly pathetic and makes me wonder why this article was even written.