Rand Paul Is Back After Assault – Here’s What He Says Is ‘Weird’ About Neighbor’s Attack

November 29, 2017

WRITER

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) is back after allegedly being jumped by a neighbor who broke several of his ribs while the lawmaker was working on his lawn at his Kentucky home.

In his first TV interview since the incident, Paul didn’t detail a motive for the attack, simply saying that he couldn’t hear anything because he was protecting his ears while mowing and he never saw the neighbor coming. He said the real question was whether or not you can attack someone, not if the assault was politically motivated.

Why Don’t We Know a Motive for the Attack on Sen. Rand Paul?

“The weird thing is I haven’t talked to him in 10 years,” Paul said. “If someone mugs you, is it really justified for any reason?”

Pat and Stu debated the motivation behind Paul’s TV statement on today’s show, with Stu wondering if the senator is holding back because of an ongoing investigation into the incident.

This article provided courtesy of TheBlaze.

PAT: So, wow, that snowball continues to roll down the hill and gathers steam. Who knows where that will end? But also a sort of mysterious incident that's been kind of on the back burner for about a month now. The Rand Paul attack. The guy -- his next-door neighbor attacked him while he was getting off his riding lawn mower. He had earmuffs on to protect his hearing from the noise.

And the neighbor came racing across his lawn. And apparently slammed him into the tractor or the ground, hard enough to break six of his ribs.

STU: Jeez.

PAT: Now, here's Rand Paul's description of the attack from yesterday.

RAND: I was working in my yard with my earmuffs on, you know, to protect my hearing from the mower, and I had gotten off the mower, facing downhill. And the attacker came running. I never saw him. Never had a conversation. In fact, the weird thing is, I haven't talked to him in ten years.

PAT: That's just amazing.

STU: He has his headphones on. He's facing the other way. And there's a hill in front of him. And this guy runs and levels him at full speed without him even knowing it's coming, and he hasn't talked to the guy in ten years.

PAT: So bizarre. So bizarre.

He also talked about the motive behind the attack, sort of. Listen to this.

VOICE: Do you have any idea what was in his head?

RAND: Well, I didn't before the attack because we had no conversation.

After my ribs were broken, then he said things to me to try to indicate he was unhappy. But I think the -- I guess, to me, the bottom line is, it isn't so important -- if someone mugs you, is it really justified for any reason?

And so I think the more people belabored, oh, well, was it about yard clipping, was it because he hates Donald Trump, he hates you because you oppose Obamacare? You don't really know what's in someone's mind.

And so it may have some relevance. But for the most part, the real question should be, are you allowed to attack someone from behind in their yard when they're out mowing their grass?

PAT: That isn't the question. Because everyone knows the answer to it. No, of course not. That's not what we're saying.

On the one hand, he says, you can't know what's in someone's mind. Well, yeah, you do. Because he told you. And he said he told you. After he attacks -- why not tell us?

STU: Why not tell us?

PAT: Something really strange about that. I don't understand. Why?

STU: Yeah. I don't understand it either. Is it potentially that he's going to enter into legal action against this guy and doesn't want to talk about it publicly?

PAT: It could be.

STU: It certainly seems like he should. It seems like a worthwhile lawsuit. The idea that this guy would just come attack you for no reason in the middle of the yard though because he keeps -- he keeps -- he won't just say it.

PAT: Right.

STU: Just tell us what it is.

PAT: What did he say to you? Because he did explain it to him obviously. Because he said, he tried to explain to me why he was unhappy.

Well, why was he unhappy? What could be the reason for not telling, other than the lawsuit? But then maybe it's something embarrassing to Rand. I don't know.

STU: Fundamentally, of course, he's right, you can't just -- no matter what your complaint is, you can't just come and attack somebody in their yard when they're not looking. That's true. We all know that's true. That's not the fundamental question. Because it's too obvious. There's no intrigue to that question. We all get it.

Yes, his explanation here, whether it's politics, whether it is, you know, lawn clippings, whether it's something else, isn't all that important, as he should probably receive the same penalty either way.

That is of course not how our legal system is designed. Because our legal system says, if it's about politics, and he's attacking a senator about politics. It may be a federal crime, which may be much larger in penalty. A normal brawl with your neighbor might get you some prison time, depending how severe it is.

But when you're attacking a senator over political purposes, that's a totally different scale.

And that's why I think it really matters for this guy, because if that was his motivation, it might wind up being a much bigger deal for him.

PAT: Maybe he's -- maybe he doesn't want to make it a much bigger deal for him. Maybe it was politically motivated and he just doesn't want to say.

STU: It's weird.

PAT: We all have a tendency to start filling in the blanks, when the blanks aren't filled in for us. Because you just want to make sense of it. And we've had two situations lately, that the blanks haven't been filled in for us. The shooting in Las Vegas. And now this Rand Paul thing. So people are filling in the blanks.

STU: I'm glad you brought up the Vegas thing. Because what the hell is going on with that?

PAT: I don't know.

STU: 500 people were shot or more.

PAT: Yeah, more.

STU: And many died, obviously.

And --

PAT: We still don't know the time line. We don't know why he stopped shooting or when. You got the hotel version, and then you have the security version, and then you have the police version.

STU: And still nothing about this guy's motivation.

PAT: No.

STU: Very little from the people around him.

PAT: Which contributes to a bunch of conspiracy theories.

STU: Yeah. Which is dumb.

PAT: It is.

STU: You're right that human beings tend to fill in the blanks that are blank. Right? That's not necessarily good instinct though. People do a lot of crazy things.

PAT: So the kooks are filling in the blanks of the Vegas shooting, that these are crisis actors. And the shooting didn't actually happen. It's so absurd. So absurd.

Because we don't have the answer with Rand Paul, was that a crisis actor on Senator Paul's lawn mower? This didn't actually happen to him. It didn't happen.

STU: My belief was, it was not -- it was not a real lawn mower.

PAT: It was not a real lawn mower. That's what Senator Paul is trying to cover up. I don't have a real riding mower.

STU: Here's the thing, he was trying to get out of the house. Act like he was working.

PAT: I've done that before.

STU: In reality, he just had like a go-cart. It's not actually cutting the lawn. He just wanted to be out of the house.

PAT: Since he didn't get it finished. He had to tell his wife something.

STU: And he can't tell his wife. About lawn clippings because there was no lawn clippings. He wasn't mowing the lawn. That's what I believe happened.

PAT: I think you need to call Infowars.

STU: Oh, yeah.

PAT: Because I think that's probably accurate. I think we just stumbled on the truth right there. He wasn't actually mowing his lawn.

STU: Because, I mean, if you could get away with just going outside, turning on the mower, letting it run, and sitting on the other side, they hear the mower inside. They assume the grass is being cut.

PAT: Right.

STU: And in reality, you're still watching Netflix on your phone.

PAT: Yeah.

STU: That's not a bad approach.

Yeah. No. It's a weird thing. That is a strange story in that both of them, how do we not have more information? I guess with Rand Paul, it's one person. It's a bad attack. And he's a sitting US senator. It's a big deal. But it's not hundreds of people being shot and murdered for seemingly no apparent reason.

PAT: I still think -- I still think the -- the problem with the security guard is that he's -- he's maybe a dreamer, you know. He's here illegally.

Because he's been here I think most all of his life. But I'll bet he's an illegal alien. And nobody wants to say it. And that's probably why he isn't registered as a security guard. And Mandela bay doesn't want to say anything about hiring illegals and skipping the process and breaking the law. Because they had to be registered.

STU: He did do one interview.

PAT: He did one interview with Ellen, which was a softball interview, and she never got to the bottom of anything we wanted to know about.

STU: And he never wants to talk again. At some point, you would assume there's going to be an investigation where he's talking to authorities. And we'll eventually probably find that out.

It's amazing how the media -- this is not a minor thing. It's the worst mass shooting in history. Worst mass -- I shouldn't say in US history. Because go look at some communist regimes and see if there have been worst mass shootings than that. There have been. A lot of them, most of them worst mass shootings in history have all been done by governments. We should point out, something the left, when they talk about how the government should be controlling weapons should maybe learn that lesson.

But, yeah. This is a really, really bad one. An incredibly horrific story, with immense amounts of video too.

You know, there's one thing to have a mass shooting. We all hear those terrible stories. It's another thing -- we all feel like we kind of experience that one. When you feel like you're standing in the crowd watching Jason Aldean sing and all of a sudden people are being slaughtered around you, and there doesn't even seem to be an update, not even on a weekly basis -- we're getting nothing out of that story. It's very strange

PAT: Right. And it's almost two months now. It happened October 1st, right? So it's November 29th now. And two days -- it's December 1st. Two months from the event. And they filled in no blanks for us.

STU: Yeah. I would encourage you, if you're feeling the same way about this, to get a baseline. The New York Times put together an amazing piece of video and time line about when things happen and where things happen with video -- some video I had never seen before, of like cabdrivers that were pulling up to the Mandalay Bay, not knowing what was going on, just hearing the noises. I mean, and showing you where it was, what happened, at exactly what they think is the right time. Which, as you point out, there are some disagreements in the time line. But at least it gives you a general sense of what was happening, where it was happening. And some and some of that has been fleshed out. But still, motivation, nothing.

PAT: Nothing.

STU: Really, giant zilch. I mean, could this person have lived his entire life with no indication that he was going to do this and just do it? I guess it's possible.

But that's almost scarier in some ways. An Islamic extremist that does something like this, we all know, there are millions of Islamic extremists around the world, many of which have answered to pollsters that they want to kill innocent Americans.

PAT: Yeah.

STU: It's one thing to be dedicated to kill innocent Americans. It's another thing to say, you know what, I'm going to tell the pollster who just called me, you know what, yes, I would like to kill them. That's quite another -- that's quite another line.

Across the world and luckily the problem isn't as bad here obviously, but, you know, there are extremists all over the place that want to kill people.

And while it's terrible and dying is dying, you at least understand, there's something understandable about that.

I think it was Adam Lanza was the -- the guy in -- with the school in Sandy Hook. I think that was Adam Lanza. Sometimes I get these things confused. But one of the most terrible things about that, despite it being one of the worst crimes committed in American history probably. These are little children. Nothing to do with any of this. Anything.

But he seemingly -- guy didn't really have a story. You know, he was kind of -- he had some mental issues. You know, he -- he -- he played -- you know, he was obsessed with these shootings kind of.

That's kind of all we know. There really wasn't -- not that there's ever a satisfying answer to something like that. But at least, when there's an ideology behind it, you understand what occurred. And this one is even -- I mean, makes that one look like we have tons of information on it.

PAT: It's even more obscure.

STU: More obscure. It doesn't seem to be anything. Just, this guy had a bunch of weapons, and meticulously planned over a long period of time.

PAT: And a guy with access to $2 million. A wealthy guy, so strange.

Antifa isn’t “leaderless” — It’s an organized machine of violence

Jeff J Mitchell / Staff | Getty Images

The mob rises where men of courage fall silent. The lesson from Portland, Chicago, and other blue cities is simple: Appeasing radicals doesn’t buy peace — it only rents humiliation.

Parts of America, like Portland and Chicago, now resemble occupied territory. Progressive city governments have surrendered control to street militias, leaving citizens, journalists, and even federal officers to face violent anarchists without protection.

Take Portland, where Antifa has terrorized the city for more than 100 consecutive nights. Federal officers trying to keep order face nightly assaults while local officials do nothing. Independent journalists, such as Nick Sortor, have even been arrested for documenting the chaos. Sortor and Blaze News reporter Julio Rosas later testified at the White House about Antifa’s violence — testimony that corporate media outlets buried.

Antifa is organized, funded, and emboldened.

Chicago offers the same grim picture. Federal agents have been stalked, ambushed, and denied backup from local police while under siege from mobs. Calls for help went unanswered, putting lives in danger. This is more than disorder; it is open defiance of federal authority and a violation of the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause.

A history of violence

For years, the legacy media and left-wing think tanks have portrayed Antifa as “decentralized” and “leaderless.” The opposite is true. Antifa is organized, disciplined, and well-funded. Groups like Rose City Antifa in Oregon, the Elm Fork John Brown Gun Club in Texas, and Jane’s Revenge operate as coordinated street militias. Legal fronts such as the National Lawyers Guild provide protection, while crowdfunding networks and international supporters funnel money directly to the movement.

The claim that Antifa lacks structure is a convenient myth — one that’s cost Americans dearly.

History reminds us what happens when mobs go unchecked. The French Revolution, Weimar Germany, Mao’s Red Guards — every one began with chaos on the streets. But it wasn’t random. Today’s radicals follow the same playbook: Exploit disorder, intimidate opponents, and seize moral power while the state looks away.

Dismember the dragon

The Trump administration’s decision to designate Antifa a domestic terrorist organization was long overdue. The label finally acknowledged what citizens already knew: Antifa functions as a militant enterprise, recruiting and radicalizing youth for coordinated violence nationwide.

But naming the threat isn’t enough. The movement’s financiers, organizers, and enablers must also face justice. Every dollar that funds Antifa’s destruction should be traced, seized, and exposed.

AFP Contributor / Contributor | Getty Images

This fight transcends party lines. It’s not about left versus right; it’s about civilization versus anarchy. When politicians and judges excuse or ignore mob violence, they imperil the republic itself. Americans must reject silence and cowardice while street militias operate with impunity.

Antifa is organized, funded, and emboldened. The violence in Portland and Chicago is deliberate, not spontaneous. If America fails to confront it decisively, the price won’t just be broken cities — it will be the erosion of the republic itself.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

URGENT: Supreme Court case could redefine religious liberty

Drew Angerer / Staff | Getty Images

The state is effectively silencing professionals who dare speak truths about gender and sexuality, redefining faith-guided speech as illegal.

This week, free speech is once again on the line before the U.S. Supreme Court. At stake is whether Americans still have the right to talk about faith, morality, and truth in their private practice without the government’s permission.

The case comes out of Colorado, where lawmakers in 2019 passed a ban on what they call “conversion therapy.” The law prohibits licensed counselors from trying to change a minor’s gender identity or sexual orientation, including their behaviors or gender expression. The law specifically targets Christian counselors who serve clients attempting to overcome gender dysphoria and not fall prey to the transgender ideology.

The root of this case isn’t about therapy. It’s about erasing a worldview.

The law does include one convenient exception. Counselors are free to “assist” a person who wants to transition genders but not someone who wants to affirm their biological sex. In other words, you can help a child move in one direction — one that is in line with the state’s progressive ideology — but not the other.

Think about that for a moment. The state is saying that a counselor can’t even discuss changing behavior with a client. Isn’t that the whole point of counseling?

One‑sided freedom

Kaley Chiles, a licensed professional counselor in Colorado Springs, has been one of the victims of this blatant attack on the First Amendment. Chiles has dedicated her practice to helping clients dealing with addiction, trauma, sexuality struggles, and gender dysphoria. She’s also a Christian who serves patients seeking guidance rooted in biblical teaching.

Before 2019, she could counsel minors according to her faith. She could talk about biblical morality, identity, and the path to wholeness. When the state outlawed that speech, she stopped. She followed the law — and then she sued.

Her case, Chiles v. Salazar, is now before the Supreme Court. Justices heard oral arguments on Tuesday. The question: Is counseling a form of speech or merely a government‑regulated service?

If the court rules the wrong way, it won’t just silence therapists. It could muzzle pastors, teachers, parents — anyone who believes in truth grounded in something higher than the state.

Censored belief

I believe marriage between a man and a woman is ordained by God. I believe that family — mother, father, child — is central to His design for humanity.

I believe that men and women are created in God’s image, with divine purpose and eternal worth. Gender isn’t an accessory; it’s part of who we are.

I believe the command to “be fruitful and multiply” still stands, that the power to create life is sacred, and that it belongs within marriage between a man and a woman.

And I believe that when we abandon these principles — when we treat sex as recreation, when we dissolve families, when we forget our vows — society fractures.

Are those statements controversial now? Maybe. But if this case goes against Chiles, those statements and others could soon be illegal to say aloud in public.

Faith on trial

In Colorado today, a counselor cannot sit down with a 15‑year‑old who’s struggling with gender identity and say, “You were made in God’s image, and He does not make mistakes.” That is now considered hate speech.

That’s the “freedom” the modern left is offering — freedom to affirm, but never to question. Freedom to comply, but never to dissent. The same movement that claims to champion tolerance now demands silence from anyone who disagrees. The root of this case isn’t about therapy. It’s about erasing a worldview.

The real test

No matter what happens at the Supreme Court, we cannot stop speaking the truth. These beliefs aren’t political slogans. For me, they are the product of years of wrestling, searching, and learning through pain and grace what actually leads to peace. For us, they are the fundamental principles that lead to a flourishing life. We cannot balk at standing for truth.

Maybe that’s why God allows these moments — moments when believers are pushed to the wall. They force us to ask hard questions: What is true? What is worth standing for? What is worth dying for — and living for?

If we answer those questions honestly, we’ll find not just truth, but freedom.

The state doesn’t grant real freedom — and it certainly isn’t defined by Colorado legislators. Real freedom comes from God. And the day we forget that, the First Amendment will mean nothing at all.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Glenn Beck joins Megyn Kelly LIVE — One night ONLY in Fort Worth!

Get ready for sparks to fly. For the first time in years, Glenn will come face-to-face with Megyn Kelly — and this time, he’s the one in the hot seat. On October 25, 2025, at Dickies Arena in Fort Worth, Texas, Glenn joins Megyn on her “Megyn Kelly Live Tour” for a no-holds-barred conversation that promises laughs, surprises, and maybe even a few uncomfortable questions.

What will happen when two of America’s sharpest voices collide under the spotlight? Will Glenn finally reveal the major announcement he’s been teasing on the radio for weeks? You’ll have to be there to find out.

This promises to be more than just an interview — it’s a live showdown packed with wit, honesty, and the kind of energy you can only feel if you are in the room. Tickets are selling fast, so don’t miss your chance to see Glenn like you’ve never seen him before.

Get your tickets NOW at www.MegynKelly.com before they’re gone!

What our response to Israel reveals about us

JOSEPH PREZIOSO / Contributor | Getty Images

I have been honored to receive the Defender of Israel Award from Prime Minister Netanyahu.

The Jerusalem Post recently named me one of the strongest Christian voices in support of Israel.

And yet, my support is not blind loyalty. It’s not a rubber stamp for any government or policy. I support Israel because I believe it is my duty — first as a Christian, but even if I weren’t a believer, I would still support her as a man of reason, morality, and common sense.

Because faith isn’t required to understand this: Israel’s existence is not just about one nation’s survival — it is about the survival of Western civilization itself.

It is a lone beacon of shared values in the Middle East. It is a bulwark standing against radical Islam — the same evil that seeks to dismantle our own nation from within.

And my support is not rooted in politics. It is rooted in something simpler and older than politics: a people’s moral and historical right to their homeland, and their right to live in peace.

Israel has that right — and the right to defend herself against those who openly, repeatedly vow her destruction.

Let’s make it personal: if someone told me again and again that they wanted to kill me and my entire family — and then acted on that threat — would I not defend myself? Wouldn’t you? If Hamas were Canada, and we were Israel, and they did to us what Hamas has done to them, there wouldn’t be a single building left standing north of our border. That’s not a question of morality.

That’s just the truth. All people — every people — have a God-given right to protect themselves. And Israel is doing exactly that.

My support for Israel’s right to finish the fight against Hamas comes after eighty years of rejected peace offers and failed two-state solutions. Hamas has never hidden its mission — the eradication of Israel. That’s not a political disagreement.

That’s not a land dispute. That is an annihilationist ideology. And while I do not believe this is America’s war to fight, I do believe — with every fiber of my being — that it is Israel’s right, and moral duty, to defend her people.

Criticism of military tactics is fair. That’s not antisemitism. But denying Israel’s right to exist, or excusing — even celebrating — the barbarity of Hamas? That’s something far darker.

We saw it on October 7th — the face of evil itself. Women and children slaughtered. Babies burned alive. Innocent people raped and dragged through the streets. And now, to see our own fellow citizens march in defense of that evil… that is nothing short of a moral collapse.

If the chants in our streets were, “Hamas, return the hostages — Israel, stop the bombing,” we could have a conversation.

But that’s not what we hear.

What we hear is open sympathy for genocidal hatred. And that is a chasm — not just from decency, but from humanity itself. And here lies the danger: that same hatred is taking root here — in Dearborn, in London, in Paris — not as horror, but as heroism. If we are not vigilant, the enemy Israel faces today will be the enemy the free world faces tomorrow.

This isn’t about politics. It’s about truth. It’s about the courage to call evil by its name and to say “Never again” — and mean it.

And you don’t have to open a Bible to understand this. But if you do — if you are a believer — then this issue cuts even deeper. Because the question becomes: what did God promise, and does He keep His word?

He told Abraham, “I will bless those who bless you, and curse those who curse you.” He promised to make Abraham the father of many nations and to give him “the whole land of Canaan.” And though Abraham had other sons, God reaffirmed that promise through Isaac. And then again through Isaac’s son, Jacob — Israel — saying: “The land I gave to Abraham and Isaac I give to you and to your descendants after you.”

That’s an everlasting promise.

And from those descendants came a child — born in Bethlehem — who claimed to be the Savior of the world. Jesus never rejected His title as “son of David,” the great King of Israel.

He said plainly that He came “for the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” And when He returns, Scripture says He will return as “the Lion of the tribe of Judah.” And where do you think He will go? Back to His homeland — Israel.

Tamir Kalifa / Stringer | Getty Images

And what will He find when He gets there? His brothers — or his brothers’ enemies? Will the roads where He once walked be preserved? Or will they lie in rubble, as Gaza does today? If what He finds looks like the aftermath of October 7th, then tell me — what will be my defense as a Christian?

Some Christians argue that God’s promises to Israel have been transferred exclusively to the Church. I don’t believe that. But even if you do, then ask yourself this: if we’ve inherited the promises, do we not also inherit the land? Can we claim the birthright and then, like Esau, treat it as worthless when the world tries to steal it?

So, when terrorists come to slaughter Israelis simply for living in the land promised to Abraham, will we stand by? Or will we step forward — into the line of fire — and say,

“Take me instead”?

Because this is not just about Israel’s right to exist.

It’s about whether we still know the difference between good and evil.

It’s about whether we still have the courage to stand where God stands.

And if we cannot — if we will not — then maybe the question isn’t whether Israel will survive. Maybe the question is whether we will.

Glenn's Show Prep