Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) announced on the Senate floor Wednesday he intended to filibuster the nomination of John Brennan as director of the CIA, citing concerns about President Barack Obama’s policy on civil liberties.
“I will speak until I can no longer speak,” Paul said.
I won’t go into the drone debate or the fact that Paul is making a politically stupid move in my book. Instead, I will focus solely on Paul’s sudden and strange love for civil liberties. That is what I have an issue with.
The last time I checked, Paul has had an undying love for the Civil Rights Act, Voting Rights Act, and VAWA. This is the same libertarian that said the following on the Rachel Maddow Show on MSNBC (I love her to death, btw.):
“I’m not in favor of any discrimination of any form,” he responded. “I would never belong to any club that excluded anybody for race. We still do have private clubs in America that can discriminate based on race. But I think what’s important about this debate is not written into any specific ‘gotcha’ on this, but asking the question: What about freedom of speech? Should we limit speech from people we find abhorrent? Should we limit racists from speaking? . . . I don’t want to be associated with those people, but I also don’t want to limit their speech in any way in the sense that we tolerate boorish and uncivilized behavior because that’s one of the things freedom requires.”
That sounds nice and patriotic and First Amendment rights yayyyyyyyyyyy-ness and all, but let’s remember the actual wording of the First Amendment:
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.
Congress shall not make a law prohibiting the free exercise or abridging the freedom of speech. We don’t technically have a right to speak whatever we want. Congress just can’t limit that. Now, the last time I checked, Congress doesn’t have a law that prohibits any sort of speech in the books.
Now I’m not saying that what Paul said is theoretically wrong, I’m just saying that it’s rather hypocritical. This is the guy that wants to abolish the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act. This is the guy that pretty much wants to take us back to the 20s, and by that I mean the 1820s (Thank you Dan Malloy for this quote).
And now he’s talking about civil liberties in regards to the drone debate? I’m sorry, but that’s so hypocritical that it’s making me laugh out of pain. I wonder if he’s ever heard himself speak and realize that what he’s saying is so ridiculous. But I suppose that requires higher level of critical thinking, which requires brain power, and it’s rather self evident that he doesn’t have enough brain cells for this.
Sorry for the lack of coherency. I’m really out of it, thanks to a certain someone whom I met today. (I won’t go into this… urgh, just thinking about it makes me all flustered again.)