Rand Paul on the influence of libertarians on races across the country

November 06, 2012

Writer

This morning on radio, Glenn spoke with Senator Rand Paul from Kentucky. How does he think libertarians will influence the race? And does he think Republicans are being underestimated in the polls? Check out the full interview from radio in the clip above.

Full transcript of the interview is below:

GLENN: We want to talk to Senator Rand Paul from Kentucky. I've heard a lot of people, pollsters, generally say that there are a lot of people that are sitting this one out that are libertarian and they're saying I'm not going to do it because neither of these guys are my guy. I understand that. Neither of these guys were are my guy, either, but I found enough in somebody that I can support because we are at a critical juncture with our country. And you've got to make a choice. You can't just say let it spiral out of control. That's ‑‑ that is the act of a mad man.

We have Senator Rand Paul on to talk a little bit about this and specifically to Missouri because if I understand right, there's a guy running in Missouri who's like been in and out of jail and is running as a libertarian and really not a good choice. Hello, Rand, how are you, sir?

RAND PAUL: The way I look at it is if you want the perfect candidate, the candidate that agrees with you 100% of the time, the only one is if you run yourself. So if you're not actually running, you have to make a little bit of compromise with who you're going to support.

GLENN: I...

RAND PAUL: When I look at, you know, the difference between Romney and Obama, it's a stark difference, and neither one of them are libertarian but I would say on economic freedom and pro business attitude, smaller government, it's night and day that Romney would really support smaller government, particularly in the economic freedoms. So I find it not really that difficult of a choice.

But you're right, and I've had promise Democrats come up to me and say that they guarantee a libertarian runs in every race, every year because they see them as a spoiler. Right now the Democrats have actually plowed $500,000 into a libertarian running for Senate in Montana. It's also happening in Missouri. So the Democrats are actually funding libertarian candidates because they see it as a way to get two or three points in a close election.

GLENN: I will tell you that part of me says good, we're using their money to further libertarian causes, but they would never ‑‑ if there was close ‑‑ if it was close and that libertarian was ever going to have power, they wouldn't like it that much. So they wouldn't fund that one.

RAND PAUL: The problem is we've been ‑‑ for 40 years the libertarians have been trying to form a party and try to get more than 1 or 2% of the vote, but it hasn't happened. Some of it's because there are legal impediments, some of it's because they don't get in the debates. But some of it is that I don't think we'll get a third party unless there were some sort of chaotic situation. You know, we got the Republican Party when slavery was a big issue. We don't have an issue that really rises to that level probably. So ‑‑

GLENN: May I give you the scenario and see what ‑‑ how likely you think this is: I think the one that will create the Libertarian Party or a new party and destroy the Republican Party is if they get control ‑‑ if the Republicans get control of the House and the Senate and the White House and then they, in two years, they don't repeal ObamaCare, they don't roll things back, they aren't serious about cutting. They go into the Karl Rove style Republican, I really, truly believe ‑‑ I know I will never pull the lever of a Republican again if they betray us this time.

RAND PAUL: Well, and I think a lot of people remember the last time we controlled all three branches and they were disappointed by that. And you do lose a certain percentage of people. They either quit voting or they go and vote libertarian just to protest and so you do have to show that we honestly will do the right thing. I also think time is running short that we can't continue to be big government Republicans in adding new programs because really the debt threatens us all.

GLENN: Tell me about the guy who's running in Missouri. Do you know anything about him?

RAND PAUL: I don't know much about him but, you know, I've spent some money trying to get people know that Todd Akin is a small government guy, he's been one of the most conservative, most frugal. And also really to tell you the truth when we have Republicans who lack spine, who are afraid to cut spending, I think if he's elected in the Senate, he will cut spending.

GLENN: That is really good news. How do you feel today going into things?

RAND PAUL: I think the polls still underestimate Republican strength. I think the polls are still taking into account 2008 too much and ignoring 2010. 2010 was an enormous election. The TEA Party movement I think is the biggest movement in the last 40 years in American politics, and I think it's still heading in that direction. I don't think we went to 2010 and now we're headed back to 2008. I just can't believe that ‑‑ I think the polls are going to underestimate. So part of me sees like Dick Morris' predictions or George Will's prediction with Romney getting 300 votes ‑‑ 300 electoral votes or more as being possible. Because I think really the momentum and the enthusiasm is still with us.

GLENN: I ‑‑ you know what? For exactly the same reason I've been saying 321. That Romney's going to walk away with 321. Because I think this is 2010. Aren't you a 2010 baby?

RAND PAUL: Yeah, and I still think so. I still hear the same thing when I talk to people. People are worried. People are concerned that our government's not paying attention to the Constitution. But they're also harkening to the dangers of the debt. And I think people realize it. And everywhere I go, I hear the same sort of rhetoric and concern I heard in 2010.

GLENN: So ‑‑

RAND PAUL: I don't think it's changed.

GLENN: When you were ‑‑

RAND PAUL: I don't think we're going back to 2008.

GLENN: When you were running, wasn't the press saying the same thing about 2010? They were saying ‑‑ they were dismissing it, the TEA Party's extremist, it's not going to play a role, it's really kind of over, yada, yada. They were dismissing all of these things, were they not?

RAND PAUL: It's the same rhetoric. And I would say over and over again what is extreme is a trillion dollar deficit each year. What's extreme is $16 trillion in debt. You know, believing in a balanced budget, for goodness sakes, is not an extreme position.

GLENN: Right. The ‑‑ I'm concerned, let's just project, let's ‑‑ Glenn Beck is declaring now Mitt Romney the winner. So let's project Mitt Romney the winner and let's fast‑forward 24 hours from now. I believe that you will see John Boehner and the Karl Rove crew all kind of getting together and saying the TEA Party is extremist, the social conservatives, are religious conservatives, they had nothing to do with this; this is a Republican thing and if you want to win, you're going to have to reach across the aisle to those reasonable Democrats and you're going to have the John McCain, Lindsey Graham, John Boehner kind of takeover. And if we don't stand starting tomorrow and put them on notice, we are not going anywhere. You're going to do these things. They control everybody that we've brought in. Agree or disagree?

RAND PAUL: And letting them know and putting them on notice that if they need one vote to pass the budget, they are going to need to work to get my vote because I'm not voting for a Republican budget that doesn't balance in a reasonable time. To me a reasonable time is five, maybe at the longest eight years. But I'm not voting for any Republican budget that says, oh, in three decades we may value. Because who knows who will even be alive then, who will be elected. We have no control over congresses two decades from now. So unless we have a plan that looks like it would be implemented really within one or two Romney terms, I'm not voting for it. And it's going to have to eliminate some of government. It's not going to just slow the growth of government. So they're going to have to work to get my vote. It's typically been a "let's work to get the liberal Republicans' votes." I'm going to make them work to get the conservative Republican votes.

GLENN: Good.

RAND PAUL: And we're going to get a nucleus of House members and Senate members who say it's going to have to be a budget that balances or we're not voting for it, even if it's a Republican budget.

GLENN: Rand, I have to tell you you'll have the support of this program and our network and also I think majority, vast majority of our listeners because people are sick and tired of hearing something that's going to happen in ten years. It's not going to happen in ten years, and I don't want a five‑year budget where it's all loaded in the fifth year. If you're going to do it, it's balanced in five years, good. We take the pain every single year. Not load it in the fifth year because who those who's going to be in office in the fifth year.

RAND PAUL: And I think it's what people fail to realize about the TEA Party movement. I've been saying over and over again it's equal parts chastisement to both parties. We tend to vote more Republican than the TEA Party does but it's not that they're happy with all Republicans. They want Republicans to balance the budget. They don't want Republicans just because their name is Republican. They want small, limited constitutional government with these budgets. And they will ‑‑ I think they will hold Republicans accountable as well.

GLENN: Oh, I know they will. I know they will. Rand, thank you very much. I appreciate your time and appreciate all the hard work you're doing in Washington. I think assuming Romney wins tomorrow, the hard work has just begun. If you would assume that Obama wins tomorrow, may I recommend moving to Texas.

RAND PAUL: Thanks a lot, Glenn.

GLENN: All right. Bye‑bye.

RAND PAUL: See ya.

Breaking point: Will America stand up to the mob?

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.

Colorado counselor fights back after faith declared “illegal”

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