Blog
LatestArticlesVideos
Radio
LivePodcastSerialsStations
TV
Podcasts
The Glenn Beck ProgramThe Glenn Beck PodcastThe Beck Story
Fine Art
Real Estate
Shop
More
AboutCharityBooksSponsorsContact
SEARCH
Live Radio

©2024 MERCURY RADIO ARTS.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

TERMS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY

Live

Glenn's Show Prep

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

November 06, 2012
Wilson

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.

        Bill Gates ends climate fear campaign, declares AI the future ruler
    

         Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images
    
The Big Tech billionaire once said humanity must change or perish. Now he claims we’ll survive — just as elites prepare total surveillance.
For decades, Americans have been told that climate change is an imminent apocalypse — the existential threat that justifies every intrusion into our lives, from banning gas stoves to rationing energy to tracking personal “carbon scores.”
Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates helped lead that charge. He warned repeatedly that the “climate disaster” would be the greatest crisis humanity would ever face. He invested billions in green technology and demanded the world reach net-zero emissions by 2050 “to avoid catastrophe.”
The global contest is no longer over barrels and pipelines — it is over who gets to flip the digital switch.
Now, suddenly, he wants everyone to relax: Climate change “will not lead to humanity’s demise” after all.
Gates was making less of a scientific statement and more of a strategic pivot. When elites retire a crisis, it’s never because the threat is gone — it’s because a better one has replaced it. And something else has indeed arrived — something the ruling class finds more useful than fear of the weather.The same day Gates downshifted the doomsday rhetoric, Amazon announced it would pay warehouse workers $30 an hour — while laying off 30,000 people because artificial intelligence will soon do their jobs.
Climate panic was the warm-up. AI control is the main event.
The new currency of power
The world once revolved around oil and gas. Today, it revolves around the electricity demanded by server farms, the chips that power machine learning, and the data that can be used to manipulate or silence entire populations. The global contest is no longer over barrels and pipelines — it is over who gets to flip the digital switch. Whoever controls energy now controls information. And whoever controls information controls civilization.
Climate alarmism gave elites a pretext to centralize power over energy. Artificial intelligence gives them a mechanism to centralize power over people. The future battles will not be about carbon — they will be about control.
Two futures — both ending in tyranny
Americans are already being pushed into what look like two opposing movements, but both leave the individual powerless.
The first is the technocratic empire being constructed in the name of innovation. In its vision, human work will be replaced by machines, and digital permissions will subsume personal autonomy.
Government and corporations merge into a single authority. Your identity, finances, medical decisions, and speech rights become access points monitored by biometric scanners and enforced by automated gatekeepers. Every step, purchase, and opinion is tracked under the noble banner of “efficiency.”
The second is the green de-growth utopia being marketed as “compassion.” In this vision, prosperity itself becomes immoral. You will own less because “the planet” requires it. Elites will redesign cities so life cannot extend beyond a 15-minute walking radius, restrict movement to save the Earth, and ration resources to curb “excess.” It promises community and simplicity, but ultimately delivers enforced scarcity. Freedom withers when surviving becomes a collective permission rather than an individual right.
Both futures demand that citizens become manageable — either automated out of society or tightly regulated within it. The ruling class will embrace whichever version gives them the most leverage in any given moment.
Climate panic was losing its grip. AI dependency — and the obedience it creates — is far more potent.
The forgotten way
A third path exists, but it is the one today’s elites fear most: the path laid out in our Constitution. The founders built a system that assumes human beings are not subjects to be monitored or managed, but moral agents equipped by God with rights no government — and no algorithm — can override.
   Hesham Elsherif / Stringer | Getty Images
 
That idea remains the most “disruptive technology” in history. It shattered the belief that people need kings or experts or global committees telling them how to live. No wonder elites want it erased.
Soon, you will be told you must choose: Live in a world run by machines or in a world stripped down for planetary salvation. Digital tyranny or rationed equality. Innovation without liberty or simplicity without dignity.
Both are traps.
The only way
The only future worth choosing is the one grounded in ordered liberty — where prosperity and progress exist alongside moral responsibility and personal freedom and human beings are treated as image-bearers of God — not climate liabilities, not data profiles, not replaceable hardware components.
Bill Gates can change his tune. The media can change the script. But the agenda remains the same.
They no longer want to save the planet. They want to run it, and they expect you to obey.
This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

        Why the White House restoration sent the left Into panic mode
    

         Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images
    
Presidents have altered the White House for decades, yet only Donald Trump is treated as a vandal for privately funding the East Wing’s restoration.
Every time a president so much as changes the color of the White House drapes, the press clutches its pearls. Unless the name on the stationery is Barack Obama’s, even routine restoration becomes a national outrage.
President Donald Trump’s decision to privately fund upgrades to the White House — including a new state ballroom — has been met with the usual chorus of gasps and sneers. You’d think he bulldozed Monticello.
If a Republican preserves beauty, it’s vandalism. If a Democrat does the same, it’s ‘visionary.’
The irony is that presidents have altered and expanded the White House for more than a century. President Franklin D. Roosevelt added the East and West Wings in the middle of the Great Depression. Newspapers accused him of building a palace while Americans stood in breadlines. History now calls it “vision.”
First lady Nancy Reagan faced the same hysteria. Headlines accused her of spending taxpayer money on new china “while Americans starved.” In truth, she raised private funds after learning that the White House didn’t have enough matching plates for state dinners. She took the ridicule and refused to pass blame.
“I’m a big girl,” she told her staff. “This comes with the job.” That was dignity — something the press no longer recognizes.
A restoration, not a renovation
Trump’s project is different in every way that should matter. It costs taxpayers nothing. Not a cent. The president and a few friends privately fund the work. There’s no private pool or tennis court, no personal perks. The additions won’t even be completed until after he leaves office.
What’s being built is not indulgence — it’s stewardship. A restoration of aging rooms, worn fixtures, and century-old bathrooms that no longer function properly in the people’s house. Trump has paid for cast brass doorknobs engraved with the presidential seal, restored the carpets and moldings, and ensured that the architecture remains faithful to history.
The media’s response was mockery and accusations of vanity. They call it “grotesque excess,” while celebrating billion-dollar “climate art” projects and funneling hundreds of millions into activist causes like the No Kings movement. They lecture America on restraint while living off the largesse of billionaires.
The selective guardians of history
Where was this sudden reverence for history when rioters torched St. John’s Church — the same church where every president since James Madison has worshipped? The press called it an “expression of grief.”
Where was that reverence when mobs toppled statues of Washington, Jefferson, and Grant? Or when first lady Melania Trump replaced the Rose Garden’s lawn with a patio but otherwise followed Jackie Kennedy’s original 1962 plans in the garden’s restoration? They called that “desecration.”
If a Republican preserves beauty, it’s vandalism. If a Democrat does the same, it’s “visionary.”
The real desecration
The people shrieking about “historic preservation” care nothing for history. They hate the idea that something lasting and beautiful might be built by hands they despise. They mock craftsmanship because it exposes their own cultural decay.
The White House ballroom is not a scandal — it’s a mirror. And what it reflects is the media’s own pettiness. The ruling class that ridicules restoration is the same class that cheered as America’s monuments fell. Its members sneer at permanence because permanence condemns them.
   Julia Beverly / Contributor | Getty Images
 
Trump’s improvements are an act of faith — in the nation’s symbols, its endurance, and its worth. The outrage over a privately funded renovation says less about him than it does about the journalists who mistake destruction for progress.
The real desecration isn’t happening in the East Wing. It’s happening in the newsrooms that long ago tore up their own foundation — truth — and never bothered to rebuild it.
This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

        Trump’s secret war in the Caribbean EXPOSED — It’s not about drugs
    

         Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images
    
The president’s moves in Venezuela, Guyana, and Colombia aren’t about drugs. They’re about re-establishing America’s sovereignty across the Western Hemisphere.
For decades, we’ve been told America’s wars are about drugs, democracy, or “defending freedom.” But look closer at what’s unfolding off the coast of Venezuela, and you’ll see something far more strategic taking shape. Donald Trump’s so-called drug war isn’t about fentanyl or cocaine. It’s about control — and a rebirth of American sovereignty.
The aim of Trump’s ‘drug war’ is to keep the hemisphere’s oil, minerals, and manufacturing within the Western family and out of Beijing’s hands.
The president understands something the foreign policy class forgot long ago: The world doesn’t respect apologies. It respects strength.
While the global elites in Davos tout the Great Reset, Trump is building something entirely different — a new architecture of power based on regional independence, not global dependence. His quiet campaign in the Western Hemisphere may one day be remembered as the second Monroe Doctrine.
Venezuela sits at the center of it all. It holds the world’s largest crude oil reserves — oil perfectly suited for America’s Gulf refineries. For years, China and Russia have treated Venezuela like a pawn on their chessboard, offering predatory loans in exchange for control of those resources. The result has been a corrupt, communist state sitting in our own back yard. For too long, Washington shrugged. Not any more.The naval exercises in the Caribbean, the sanctions, the patrols — they’re not about drug smugglers. They’re about evicting China from our hemisphere.
Trump is using the old “drug war” playbook to wage a new kind of war — an economic and strategic one — without firing a shot at our actual enemies. The goal is simple: Keep the hemisphere’s oil, minerals, and manufacturing within the Western family and out of Beijing’s hands.
Beyond Venezuela
Just east of Venezuela lies Guyana, a country most Americans couldn’t find on a map a year ago. Then ExxonMobil struck oil, and suddenly Guyana became the newest front in a quiet geopolitical contest. Washington is helping defend those offshore platforms, build radar systems, and secure undersea cables — not for charity, but for strategy. Control energy, data, and shipping lanes, and you control the future.
Moreover, Colombia — a country once defined by cartels — is now positioned as the hinge between two oceans and two continents. It guards the Panama Canal and sits atop rare-earth minerals every modern economy needs. Decades of American presence there weren’t just about cocaine interdiction; they were about maintaining leverage over the arteries of global trade. Trump sees that clearly.
  PEDRO MATTEY / Contributor | Getty Images
 
All of these recent news items — from the military drills in the Caribbean to the trade negotiations — reflect a new vision of American power. Not global policing. Not endless nation-building. It’s about strategic sovereignty.
It’s the same philosophy driving Trump’s approach to NATO, the Middle East, and Asia. We’ll stand with you — but you’ll stand on your own two feet. The days of American taxpayers funding global security while our own borders collapse are over.
Trump’s Monroe Doctrine
Critics will call it “isolationism.” It isn’t. It’s realism. It’s recognizing that America’s strength comes not from fighting other people’s wars but from securing our own energy, our own supply lines, our own hemisphere. The first Monroe Doctrine warned foreign powers to stay out of the Americas. The second one — Trump’s — says we’ll defend them, but we’ll no longer be their bank or their babysitter.
Historians may one day mark this moment as the start of a new era — when America stopped apologizing for its own interests and started rebuilding its sovereignty, one barrel, one chip, and one border at a time.
This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

        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.