Did you know - Report: Rand Paul calls for scrutiny of Muslims

2015-07-18T15:01:34-04:00

Report: Rand Paul calls for scrutiny of Muslims

Did Rand Paul just make a big political mistake or is he right? Your thoughts RP Nation: Political Blunder or Ground Gaining comment?

I think he made a big mistake personally!

Presidential candidate Rand Paul told one of its reporters backstage at a speech in Houston last night that the U.S. should provide extra scrutiny of people coming into the country from predominantly Muslim countries after the Chattanooga, Tenn., terrorist attack on Friday.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2015/07/18/paul-muslim-immigration/30342457/

Response by CSM Michael J. Uhlig made Jul 18 at 2015 3:08 PM

2015-07-18T15:08:20-04:00

We have to get out of the spin cycle of combining screams for political correctness (regardless to race/religion or sexual affiliation) followed by memorial services of fallen public servants......how many dang times will we turn the other cheek? These men were sons, brothers, uncles and fathers! enough is enough and the time for talk is over. It is about Deeds, not Words!

Response by SGT Jeremiah B. made Jul 18 at 2015 3:09 PM

2015-07-18T15:09:17-04:00

Not a Paul fan, but I think he's okay based on what he actually said. NOW, if he had actually called for us to increase scrutiny on Muslims in general, yeah, that'd be "Game Over, Man."

Response by PO1 John Miller made Jul 18 at 2015 3:12 PM

2015-07-18T15:12:53-04:00

Rand is my guy (so far) and I AGREE with him. But maybe he should have "worded it differently" as politicians like to say. Use the term "Terrorist Watch List" instead. If US veterans were put on DHS Watch Lists as potential "right wing extremists", why shouldn't non US citizens who come from countries that openly support terrorism?

Response by TSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 18 at 2015 3:28 PM

2015-07-18T15:28:11-04:00

Personally, I don't think it was a "big mistake," meaning I can see where his intentions may be the best and he should have chosen a better phrase, or maybe a better time and place for his true intentions to be understood. I personally won't hold this one statement against him as I consider who will get my vote over the next year+ of campaigns. Tragedy is a time where we want leaders to take action, to have plans to prevent the same things from happening, and I appreciate any ideas coming from someone looking to lead the country (assuming they aren't completely ridiculous). All Presidential hopefuls SHOULD be addressing our concerns to assure us that if they were in office, they'd be sitting in a room with their advisors getting ready to take action.

With that said, in our political climate of media taking everything out of context, spinning things to match their agenda, and at least a percentage of people who take everything thrown at them as the final word, this definitely will hurt him with some of the voting population. Is it early enough that he can recover? I think so.

Response by SFC Everett Oliver made Jul 18 at 2015 3:36 PM

2015-07-18T15:36:35-04:00

Of course he is right. I'm glad someone had the intestinal fortitude to say it. Of course the PC crowd will start their attack in 3....2....1...

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 18 at 2015 3:52 PM

2015-07-18T15:52:18-04:00

The way I read it Sir was specific scrutiny of people from jihadist countries. That makes perfect sense to me, if your country is a hotbed of terrorism we take an extra hard look at you and why you want to be here. I want to know why Rand Paul has to suggest it, instead of already being policy.... O wait that's right up is down now and common nonsense is "common sense".

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 18 at 2015 4:09 PM

2015-07-18T16:09:13-04:00

Anyone who doesn't agree with profiling certain individuals is either willfully ignorant or trying to be too damn politically correct.

Response by Bryce Englin made Jul 18 at 2015 4:30 PM

2015-07-18T16:30:15-04:00

Sir, I think he made the right decision and from a campaign standpoint it was a good call. I like the fact that his campaign is going after areas and missies many other candidates seem to ignore in favor of the regular talking points, which have been routinely swept under the rug. It also seems that Senator Paul is getting better at dealing with the media and is developing a counterpoint argument that shits people down using facts and simplified explanations that John and Jane Q Public can understand (think Ronald Reagen without the humor). As a matter of fact he shut Hannity down this past week when he explained why he voted for the Senator Corker amendment, however his argument as to why he did it was presented in a way the average American could understand it.

Response by Cpl Zach Wellborn made Jul 18 at 2015 4:30 PM

2015-07-18T16:30:36-04:00

The BIG issue here is religious freedom. Plan and simple. The Muslim religion isn't "bad" just the extreme side of that is. Which can be said of anything. The problem is that they as our government want to "prevent" terrorists which I support. But what I support even more than that is the 2nd amendment and goddamn common sense.

Response by SN Victoria Glover made Jul 18 at 2015 4:34 PM

2015-07-18T16:34:49-04:00

We should scrutinize all countries. They come across our borders from Mexico as well as flying in under false pretenses. If they can't make it past Immigration then they cross with the illegal aliens at the US-Mexico borders where the patrol is spread out. The policies have all been thrown out with Obummer to it into his own hands to pass laws through executive orders and when the politicians wanted to compromise to pass a bill that nobody has read.

Response by Sgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 18 at 2015 4:52 PM

2015-07-18T16:52:56-04:00

It's a very good idea. There are over 700 hundred thousand (Private Domestic Intel.) agents with secret level clearance contracted out by Uncle-SAM. They are used to engage in Spy on you and i. To read Face-Book and also i would bet this site. If you make claims about national policy. Which we do have authority to do by way of a little thing called 'Freedom of Expression'. Mention 911 , Obama , the War on Terror , open Boarders or how Drugs actually do make their way into the States. Your targeted and they contact you employer. You lose you job , house and can no longer food , medical insurance , rent. ** Why not have that group go after the real threats. ***

Response by TSgt Kenneth Ellis made Jul 18 at 2015 5:09 PM

2015-07-18T17:09:42-04:00

It's not constitutional. I'm not sure but I think it is 14th or 15th amendment. The do process clause. But that never stopped Obama. And I don't think it would be affective. I'm not going to google how to spell this guy name. But he had gotten a job at a nuclear power plant. And the only reason we know this is because he failed his pee test. And Democrats think that is unconstitutional.

Response by Sgt Kelli Mays made Jul 18 at 2015 7:34 PM

2015-07-18T19:34:27-04:00

Perhaps Rand Paul should not have been so vehemently against the NSA's Surveillance. The way I see it, if you do not have anything to hide, then why are you trying so hard to fight against it. everything I've read...it's just information gathering...They are not listening in on personal conversations or reading emails..or watching you take a shower....it's phone numbers, contacts.....consistencies...patterns....it picks up on key words that may be considered "dangerous" or "radical"...and I have always felt/thought and still do that if it helps keeps us safer, then why not.

I would rather be safe or more safe than sorry.

Response by COL Ted Mc made Jul 19 at 2015 2:54 AM

2015-07-19T02:54:32-04:00

COL Mikel J. Burroughs - Mikel; There really isn't much difference here between the proposed policy and the policy that applied to "Soviet Bloc" states during the Cold War.

Response by Cpl Mark McMiller made Jul 19 at 2015 6:31 AM

2015-07-19T06:31:59-04:00

Only a dumb ass wouldn't be scrutinizing these people coming into our country.