Rand Paul responds to angry Paul supporters

June 14, 2012

Writer

Earlier this week, Glenn reported that Senator Rand Paul has been taking some serious heat from his father’s supporters over his endorsement of Mitt Romney for president. Glenn interviewed Rand on radio this morning to get his thoughts on the current backlash, the state of libertarianism, and what is going on in Congress. Read the full transcript below.

GLENN: Rand Paul is a guy who lives the principles and is getting an awful lot of heat, at least this week you were getting heat earlier because of some of the supports of your father, you came out and you supported Mitt Romney and now you're getting heat from those guys. How is your dad even dealing with this, Rand?

PAUL: Well, you know, the thing about the Internet is the people who are the most unhappy are often the really smallest amount of your supporters. When we look at our supporters overall, my supporters, my dad's supporters, you know, libertarian conservatives, in general, the vast majority are not, you know, these angry folks, you know, preaching, you know, violence to me and my family because we've endorsed Governor Romney. So, I think really sometimes the extremists on the Internet get more credit than really the entire movement and they shouldn't represent the entire movement.

You know, I try to look for commonalities, areas where we agree and, you know, Governor Romney, I've had a meeting with him. We've talked extensively about audit the Fed, which is very important not only to me but my father and to his supporters and I think there's a very good chance we get it in the platform. There has been an announcement in the House that we're going to get a vote in the House and I'm working with both Republican and Democrat leadership to try to get a vote here, but some of my dad's supporters don't realize that if you call people names and call them evil, they're less likely to allow you to have a vote on something you really want to pass.

GLENN: Hang on just a second. You're saying that Romney may put audit the Fed into the platform?

PAUL: Well, the Ron Paul supporters are going to be -- about 2 or 300 delegates there are going to help him to do that, but he has already said publicly that he's for audit the Fed. That he has said many times. As far as the specific bill --

GLENN: That's fantastic.

PAUL: -- I would like him to endorse the specific bill but -- that my father has introduced that will be voted on, but publicly he's already stated that he is in support of auditing the Fed.

GLENN: You know, Rand -- and I want to talk to you a little bit about drones here in a second, but I know you were a big fan of Broke. I have to send you a new copy of Cowards because there's a chapter specifically that I would like you to read about libertarian -- libertarianism and I would like to have you on just to talk about it and see where you think I might be wrong or might be missing the boat. The chapter is all about that libertarianism, the chair was taken away from the table by the big government progressives in the Republicans and the Democratic party and they are many of the people that are defining what a libertarian is, that you have to be this crazy, you know,　We never went to the moon and we should never have a government dollar for absolutely anything kind of people and that's not　-- that's not what libertarianism is.

PAUL: Well, you know, even Ronald Reagan said the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism and many of the people who were in the founding movement in this last century of the conservative limited government movement also embrace the term libertarian. So, libertarian just means believing in limited Constitutional government. There are a lot of people who are libertarians.

GLENN: All right. Let me talk to you about drones because I find this -- I find this frightening, not only that the government is doing it but that the American people don't seem to care.

PAUL: Well, I think it's incredibly important that we restate what was in, you know, our founding fathers were very concerned about the idea of general warrants, basically that the government could just say they could search anywhere any time without having probable cause or naming who they were going to search. That sort of, if anything, could possibly be general surveillance or general, you know, searching of your privacy would be a drone, because the ability to get information and to do it anywhere, any time is just amazing and it could be used for good but it also can be used for harm and so we need to make sure we have, you know, the Constitutional protections in place and some have said, Well, your bill just restates the Constitution, (inaudible) the Fourth Amendment. Well, I think it needs to be restated because I'm afraid people -- you know, I'm afraid Mayor Bloomberg is going to be going over my backyard barbecue, seeing if anybody's got a Big Gulp or whether or not I'm separating my recyclables correctly. So, we already have a lot of nanny state and all they need is the perfect surveillance equipment to really make it a bad situation.

GLENN: I mean, Rand, there's a quote from Bloomberg, I have to send this to you. It's amazing. He was talking about surveillance on New York City and he said -- and I -- correct me if I'm wrong, Pat, but I think this is almost a direct quote, we can't have people thinking that they can just go anywhere they want.

PAUL: Well --

GLENN: Really?

PAUL: When you were talking about lemonade stands, I was thinking of Thorough's essay on civil disobedience and I was thinking, ‘Do you know what? Do you think he could ever contemplate in his lifetime that civil disobedience would someday be putting up illegal lemonade stands by school kids?’

GLENN: I mean, you know what happened yesterday? We had about a thousand people here in Texas at this lemonade stand. We had about 400 of them all around the country and here in Texas, in Texas, we had about 20 Occupy Wall Street people protesting children having a lemonade stand to benefit the homeless. (Laughter.) I mean --

PAUL: Did you -- have you heard about the Dollarhite family? They're from Missouri and the Department of Agriculture fined them $90,000 for selling bunnies with the wrong license. They actually had a license for selling bunnies, but they had the wrong listens. They fined them $90,000 because they fined them for every bunny they had sold and apparently bunnies, you know, reproduce like rabbits and they told them, though, if they didn't pay on time, it would be $3.1 million if they didn't pay within 30 days.

GLENN: Did they pay it?

PAUL: They fought it and interestingly, after about a year -- and the Department of Agriculture got somewhat embarrassed by this thing, they came back to them and they wanted a consent agreement but do you know what they wanted them to sign after they finally were red in the face and they had discovered that they were embarrassed by this? They wanted them to sign and say they would never be involved with mating and reproducing animals again. These people live on a home in rural Missouri and they want to tell them they can't reproduce their livestock. And so they wouldn't sign and this went on and on. I'm sure exactly where it is now. It's John and Judy Dollarhite from Missouri.

GLENN: Gosh.

PAUL: And it's just another example of an out of control government.

GLENN: Why do you think this stuff is happening? Do you know -- you know, I was thinking about all this regulation and I thought, Okay, in many places now they are -- and this is amaze to go me -- they are now saying in Philadelphia that you cannot feed the homeless in places where people have done it　-- charities and ministries have fed people in the open air for decades if not two centuries in Philadelphia. They're now saying they have to be in certain places and in -- I think it's in Philadelphia, but also, I believe, in California, they're reclassifying soup kitchens as restaurants and I wonder, you know, A, are they trying to close our heart? Are they trying to get more power and make people dependent on this or is this just a city, state, or Federal Government that needs those tax dollars, needs all that regulation to be able to generate money for the cities? Which is it or is it both?

PAUL: Well, I think what you said earlier kind of hits the nail on the head. We've been asleep at the switch. We haven't seemed to have cared enough. Particularly the people we've elected, the people in Washington don't care about your privacy, your State rights or individual rights. The difference between the Federal Government and the state government, it's lost on those people. They care about what a majority can pass and if a major can pass something and they want to appear to do good, they don't care about the nuance of the Constitution or the nuance of State versus Federal rights. So, they pass these things.

You know, George Will has said it many times, we have abdicated, Congress has abdicated our power to these regulatory agencies and literally the position of a U.S. senator or a U.S. Congressman is diminished such that your average ordinary bureaucrat over in the EPA has more power than I do.

GLENN: Well, how do we get rid of the drones?

PAUL: Well, I think what we've done with the drones is we have said you have to have a warrant to use them. Now, I'm not against using them for national defense or for border security or for various other reasons. If you've got someone who robbed a liquor store, sending down the street a helicopter, a plane, or a police car is fine with me; but I don't want them crisscrossing neighborhoods and mapping out our every movement if there's no probable cause that we've committed a crime.

GLENN: Rand, I am glad to have you in the Senate. I am so glad that you are there. I think you're one of the strong voices. You know, you and Mike Lee and people like that, Jim DeMint are standing and I believe you actually have a spine and one of the good guys who just will keep taking the hammering no matter what and hammer back.

PAUL: I might be seeing you. I think you've been invited to a Freedom Fest down in July in Texas and I think they said you're speaking down there and I think Ted Cruz who's a friend of mine running for the Senate down there is going to be at that event, also

GLENN: Oh. I didn't know you were coming. That's by Freedom Works

PAUL: Yeah, Freedom Works and I think it's in July sometime.

GLENN: Yeah, yeah, yeah. July 26th. Yeah.

PAUL: Yeah. And I'm going to try to help my friend Ted Cruz get elected to the Senate down there, too.

GLENN: Oh. I don't think we've ever met, have we?

PAUL: Yeah. Maybe in the television studio one time, but I think I've never interviewed in person with you. It's always been on the phone. My staff has told me to keep my distance.

(Laughter.)

GLENN: I believe that to be true and they're very wise. Rand, thank you very much and I appreciate it. God bless.

PAUL: All right. Thanks, Glenn.

GLENN: You bet. Bye-bye.

'Rage against the dying of the light': Charlie Kirk lived that mandate

PHILL MAGAKOE / Contributor | Getty Images

Kirk’s tragic death challenges us to rise above fear and anger, to rebuild bridges where others build walls, and to fight for the America he believed in.

I’ve only felt this weight once before. It was 2001, just as my radio show was about to begin. The World Trade Center fell, and I was called to speak immediately. I spent the day and night by my bedside, praying for words that could meet the moment.

Yesterday, I found myself in the same position. September 11, 2025. The assassination of Charlie Kirk. A friend. A warrior for truth.

Out of this tragedy, the tyrant dies, but the martyr’s influence begins.

Moments like this make words feel inadequate. Yet sometimes, words from another time speak directly to our own. In 1947, Dylan Thomas, watching his father slip toward death, penned lines that now resonate far beyond his own grief:

Do not go gentle into that good night. / Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Thomas was pleading for his father to resist the impending darkness of death. But those words have become a mandate for all of us: Do not surrender. Do not bow to shadows. Even when the battle feels unwinnable.

Charlie Kirk lived that mandate. He knew the cost of speaking unpopular truths. He knew the fury of those who sought to silence him. And yet he pressed on. In his life, he embodied a defiance rooted not in anger, but in principle.

Picking up his torch

Washington, Jefferson, Adams — our history was started by men who raged against an empire, knowing the gallows might await. Lincoln raged against slavery. Martin Luther King Jr. raged against segregation. Every generation faces a call to resist surrender.

It is our turn. Charlie’s violent death feels like a knockout punch. Yet if his life meant anything, it means this: Silence in the face of darkness is not an option.

He did not go gently. He spoke. He challenged. He stood. And now, the mantle falls to us. To me. To you. To every American.

We cannot drift into the shadows. We cannot sit quietly while freedom fades. This is our moment to rage — not with hatred, not with vengeance, but with courage. Rage against lies, against apathy, against the despair that tells us to do nothing. Because there is always something you can do.

Even small acts — defiance, faith, kindness — are light in the darkness. Reaching out to those who mourn. Speaking truth in a world drowning in deceit. These are the flames that hold back the night. Charlie carried that torch. He laid it down yesterday. It is ours to pick up.

The light may dim, but it always does before dawn. Commit today: I will not sleep as freedom fades. I will not retreat as darkness encroaches. I will not be silent as evil forces claim dominion. I have no king but Christ. And I know whom I serve, as did Charlie.

Two turning points, decades apart

On Wednesday, the world changed again. Two tragedies, separated by decades, bound by the same question: Who are we? Is this worth saving? What kind of people will we choose to be?

Imagine a world where more of us choose to be peacemakers. Not passive, not silent, but builders of bridges where others erect walls. Respect and listening transform even the bitterest of foes. Charlie Kirk embodied this principle.

He did not strike the weak; he challenged the powerful. He reached across divides of politics, culture, and faith. He changed hearts. He sparked healing. And healing is what our nation needs.

At the center of all this is one truth: Every person is a child of God, deserving of dignity. Change will not happen in Washington or on social media. It begins at home, where loneliness and isolation threaten our souls. Family is the antidote. Imperfect, yes — but still the strongest source of stability and meaning.

Mark Wilson / Staff | Getty Images

Forgiveness, fidelity, faithfulness, and honor are not dusty words. They are the foundation of civilization. Strong families produce strong citizens. And today, Charlie’s family mourns. They must become our family too. We must stand as guardians of his legacy, shining examples of the courage he lived by.

A time for courage

I knew Charlie. I know how he would want us to respond: Multiply his courage. Out of this tragedy, the tyrant dies, but the martyr’s influence begins. Out of darkness, great and glorious things will sprout — but we must be worthy of them.

Charlie Kirk lived defiantly. He stood in truth. He changed the world. And now, his torch is in our hands. Rage, not in violence, but in unwavering pursuit of truth and goodness. Rage against the dying of the light.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Glenn Beck resurrects the 9-12 Project to support Charlie Kirk's family

Glenn Beck is once again calling on his loyal listeners and viewers to come together and channel the same unity and purpose that defined the historic 9-12 Project. That movement, born in the wake of national challenges, brought millions together to revive core values of faith, hope, and charity.

Glenn created the original 9-12 Project in early 2009 to bring Americans back to where they were in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. In those moments, we weren't Democrats and Republicans, conservative or liberal, Red States or Blue States, we were united as one, as America. The original 9-12 Project aimed to root America back in the founding principles of this country that united us during those darkest of days.

This new initiative draws directly from that legacy, focusing on supporting the family of Charlie Kirk in these dark days following his tragic murder.

The revival of the 9-12 Project aims to secure the long-term well-being of Charlie Kirk's wife and children. All donations will go straight to meeting their immediate and future needs. If the family deems the funds surplus to their requirements, Charlie's wife has the option to redirect them toward the vital work of Turning Point USA.

This campaign is more than just financial support—it's a profound gesture of appreciation for Kirk's tireless dedication to the cause of liberty. It embodies the unbreakable bond of our community, proving that when we stand united, we can make a real difference.
Glenn Beck invites you to join this effort. Show your solidarity by donating today and honoring Charlie Kirk and his family in this meaningful way.

You can learn more about the 9-12 Project and donate HERE

The dangerous lie: Rights as government privileges, not God-given

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

When politicians claim that rights flow from the state, they pave the way for tyranny.

Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) recently delivered a lecture that should alarm every American. During a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing, he argued that believing rights come from a Creator rather than government is the same belief held by Iran’s theocratic regime.

Kaine claimed that the principles underpinning Iran’s dictatorship — the same regime that persecutes Sunnis, Jews, Christians, and other minorities — are also the principles enshrined in our Declaration of Independence.

In America, rights belong to the individual. In Iran, rights serve the state.

That claim exposes either a profound misunderstanding or a reckless indifference to America’s founding. Rights do not come from government. They never did. They come from the Creator, as the Declaration of Independence proclaims without qualification. Jefferson didn’t hedge. Rights are unalienable — built into every human being.

This foundation stands worlds apart from Iran. Its leaders invoke God but grant rights only through clerical interpretation. Freedom of speech, property, religion, and even life itself depend on obedience to the ruling clerics. Step outside their dictates, and those so-called rights vanish.

This is not a trivial difference. It is the essence of liberty versus tyranny. In America, rights belong to the individual. The government’s role is to secure them, not define them. In Iran, rights serve the state. They empower rulers, not the people.

From Muhammad to Marx

The same confusion applies to Marxist regimes. The Soviet Union’s constitutions promised citizens rights — work, health care, education, freedom of speech — but always with fine print. If you spoke out against the party, those rights evaporated. If you practiced religion openly, you were charged with treason. Property and voting were allowed as long as they were filtered and controlled by the state — and could be revoked at any moment. Rights were conditional, granted through obedience.

Kaine seems to be advocating a similar approach — whether consciously or not. By claiming that natural rights are somehow comparable to sharia law, he ignores the critical distinction between inherent rights and conditional privileges. He dismisses the very principle that made America a beacon of freedom.

Jefferson and the founders understood this clearly. “We are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights,” they wrote. No government, no cleric, no king can revoke them. They exist by virtue of humanity itself. The government exists to protect them, not ration them.

This is not a theological quibble. It is the entire basis of our government. Confuse the source of rights, and tyranny hides behind piety or ideology. The people are disempowered. Clerics, bureaucrats, or politicians become arbiters of what rights citizens may enjoy.

John Greim / Contributor | Getty Images

Gifts from God, not the state

Kaine’s statement reflects either a profound ignorance of this principle or an ideological bias that favors state power over individual liberty. Either way, Americans must recognize the danger. Understanding the origin of rights is not academic — it is the difference between freedom and submission, between the American experiment and theocratic or totalitarian rule.

Rights are not gifts from the state. They are gifts from God, secured by reason, protected by law, and defended by the people. Every American must understand this. Because when rights come from government instead of the Creator, freedom disappears.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

POLL: Is America’s next generation trading freedom for equity?

NurPhoto / Contributor | Getty Images

A recent poll conducted by Justin Haskins, a long-time friend of the show, has uncovered alarming trends among young Americans aged 18-39, revealing a generation grappling with deep frustrations over economic hardships, housing affordability, and a perceived rigged system that favors the wealthy, corporations, and older generations. While nearly half of these likely voters approve of President Trump, seeing him as an anti-establishment figure, over 70% support nationalizing major industries, such as healthcare, energy, and big tech, to promote "equity." Shockingly, 53% want a democratic socialist to win the 2028 presidential election, including a third of Trump voters and conservatives in this age group. Many cite skyrocketing housing costs, unfair taxation on the middle class, and a sense of being "stuck" or in crisis as driving forces, with 62% believing the economy is tilted against them and 55% backing laws to confiscate "excess wealth" like second homes or luxury items to help first-time buyers.

This blend of Trump support and socialist leanings suggests a volatile mix: admiration for disruptors who challenge the status quo, coupled with a desire for radical redistribution to address personal struggles. Yet, it raises profound questions about the roots of this discontent—Is it a failure of education on history's lessons about socialism's failures? Media indoctrination? Or genuine systemic barriers? And what does it portend for the nation’s trajectory—greater division, a shift toward authoritarian policies, or an opportunity for renewal through timeless values like hard work and individual responsibility?

Glenn wants to know what YOU think: Where do Gen Z's socialist sympathies come from? What does it mean for the future of America? Make your voice heard in the poll below:

Do you believe the Gen Z support for socialism comes from perceived economic frustrations like unaffordable housing and a rigged system favoring the wealthy and corporations?

Do you believe the Gen Z support for socialism, including many Trump supporters, is due to a lack of education about the historical failures of socialist systems?

Do you think that these poll results indicate a growing generational divide that could lead to more political instability and authoritarian tendencies in America's future?

Do you think that this poll implies that America's long-term stability relies on older generations teaching Gen Z and younger to prioritize self-reliance, free-market ideals, and personal accountability?

Glenn's Show Prep