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

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.

“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.

It's not just the Twitter mobs, the Leftist extremists and the flagrant fourth-wave feminists who want ICE abolished. As we've seen, there's a growing number of politicians who want to see it as well.

Cue Alejandro Alvarez, who in his 32 years has managed to cultivate his brand as a "serial immigration violator." Alejandro has been deported 11 times. Well, he's facing deportation once again, after allegedly "slashing his wife with a chainsaw." His wife is in recovery and is expected to survive.

RELATED: The cost of unchecked illegal immigration is very real, and very high

Around 3:00 pm last Wednesday, police arrived at Alejandro's. When they arrived, they found Alvarez's wife suffering from "traumatic physical injuries, believed to have been inflicted by a chainsaw." The couple's three children were huddled in fear inside the home. Alejandro's wife was rushed to a nearby trauma center for an emergency surgery.

Alejandro fled the scene of the crime, but was eventually hauled in by police and booked under "suspicion of attempted murder, child endangerment, hit and run, and grand theft auto."

Sounds like the kind of guy who should be in our country illegally, right?

ICE spokeswoman Lori Haley noted that "Immigration officers have lodged a detainer against Alvarez, requesting that local authorities notify Immigration and Customs Enforcement before his release to allow them to take the man into custody."

This is the new reality.

This is the new reality. The immigration agency has to ask for permission, to file requests, to have illegal immigrants who are guilty of crimes dealt with. Luckily for Alejandro, Los Angeles is a sanctuary city, so maybe he'll get another pass and be back on the streets in no time.

UPDATE: Here's how the discussion went on radio. Watch the video below.

Why is nobody talking about this?

Alabama law enforcement officials say that an illegal immigrant and an immigrant in the United States on a green card are responsible for the brutal murders of a grandmother and her 13-year-old special needs granddaughter in what investigators say is violence related to Mexican drug cartels.

The Purple Heart is reserved for those wounded or killed during battle. Awarded by the President, the medal has George Washington's image right there on the front of it. Make no mistake, it is reserved for heroes. True heroes. Men and women who've faced death and still persevered. Soldiers who fought in battle at the cost of their limbs, their lives, or their inner peace. John F. Kennedy earned a Purple Heart for his heroism as a gunboat pilot in 1944. John McCain received one for, well, we all know his horrific story. Colin Powell. Roughly one million Purple Heart medals have been awarded to veterans, all of whom were determined to have fought valiantly, with courage and heart.

RELATED: An FBI Agent Was Dismissed From the Mueller Probe. What Happened?

So it was a bit of a head-scratcher to hear comments from Democratic Representative Steve Cohen from Tennessee and self-appointed "Leader in Effort to #ImpeachTrump." During a House Oversight Committee hearing questioning Peter Strzok, Cohen said, perplexingly, that Strzok deserves a Purple Heart. You know, because he's injured by all those mean text messages that HE sent?

As we've seen, other than Cohen's fanboy praise, Strzok hasn't gotten off easy. Thankfully. The Department of Justice's Office of the Inspector General wrote: "We did not have confidence that Strzok's decision to prioritize the Russia investigation over following up on the Midyear-related investigative lead discovered on the [Anthony] Weiner laptop was free from bias."

Lack of confidence. I believe that's one of the criteria for a different medal. Not a Purple Heart, though. Sorry, Strzok, you'll have to get your trophy elsewhere.

Time mgazine is back at it again, reporting the real news, doing the proper journalism. One of their latest articles is sure to earn them a Pulitzer. Surely. The article is titled, "Women Are Buying Up Plan B Because They're Terrified of the Future Supreme Court."

Here's how the article opens:

Within hours of Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy's retirement announcement last month, Emily Hauser was standing at a drugstore counter asking a pharmacist for two packages of Plan B. At age 53, she didn't need the emergency contraception pills — in fact, she wasn't sure who would, or when. But Hauser bought them anyway.

RELATED: Observations of an Irishman: Lessons from the abortion referendum

I like that the article sets up Kennedy's retirement as an apocalyptic event. A recurring theme in the mainstream media, now that I think of it, especially lately. Here's the gist of it:

Across the country, Americans are stockpiling emergency contraception in light of Justice Kennedy's retirement and President Donald Trump's Monday nomination of Brett Kavanaugh. The nation's highest court is on its way to having a conservative majority, making threats against Roe v. Wade seem more dire than ever.

A good article includes backstory. History. The context. Here's what Time had to say about the sudden influx—some would say panic—in birth control:

To understand the interest in buying up Plan B, you need to brush up on Roe v. Wade. Some background: The court handed down the 7-2 decision in 1973, confirming that a woman's right to terminate her pregnancy is covered by the Fourteenth Amendment. Progress has been rocky since then.

Of course they reduce the issue to a series of strawman fallacies.

Ah, yes. Of course they reduce the issue to a series of strawman fallacies. At this point, it's impossible for those inflicted with Trump Derangement Syndrome, and now Kavanaugh Derangement Syndrome, to have a civil conversation. They certainly aren't going to budge in their opinion. Our main goal, obviously, is to connect to them as fellow human beings, living in the same chaotic world, and, hey, maybe along the way they'll admit that, maybe, they're a little more biased and deranged than they previously realized.

If all you knew about American politics came from The New York Times, CNN, The Washington Post, or MSNBC, you'd think that a "Blue wave" is about to swamp the country, with hip, millennial geniuses like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez surfing the crest of the wave. In fact, you would already think Ocasio-Cortez is the greatest hope for America since Barack Obama.

America is a very large country, and reality is usually more complex than the media lets on. But, since the media already has their narrative and superstar Ocasio-Cortez set for this November, there's no room for another young, minority, female, child of immigrants, political outsider, from the ultimate blue-wave state of California, named Elizabeth Heng. Well, there probably would be room for a story like that, except that she's a conservative.

RELATED: Democratic Socialism spun as 'innovative, millennial-friendly' — here's the reality

Thirty-two-year-old Elizabeth Heng is running for Congress against Democrat Jim Costa, in California's 16th district. It's been 40 years since a Republican won in that district.

In the early 1980s, Heng's parents fled the violence in Cambodia and immigrated to the U.S. In 2008, after graduating from Stanford where she was student-body president, Heng opened several cell-phone stores with her brothers in the central San Joaquin Valley. Running her own business and managing 75 employees opened her eyes to a not-so-dirty secret about capitalism trying to survive the virus of progressivism. She says, "I saw firsthand how government regulations impacted businesses negatively. I constantly felt that from Washington, D.C., and Sacramento, they were saying that I was everything wrong with our country, when all I was doing was creating jobs."

That's when she decided to venture to Washington, D.C., where she worked for six years learning the ins and outs of legislation and campaigning. She ended up working as a director for President Trump's inauguration ceremony, a job she managed while also finishing her MBA at Yale.

Fiscal responsibility isn't quite as sexy-sounding as free college for everyone.

One of the biggest lessons she learned working in Washington became the platform she is now running for office on: fiscal responsibility. She says, "In a family or a business, we don't suddenly act surprised when a budget comes up for the year. We get it done."

What a concept.

Still, fiscal responsibility isn't quite as sexy-sounding as free college for everyone. So, don't expect Elizabeth Heng to replace Ocasio-Cortez as the media darling anytime soon.