Senator Rand Paul: "People know Republicans aren't winning"

January 25, 2013

Writer

Full Transcript of Interview:

GLENN: Let me go to Rand Paul who, Senator, I have to tell ya you are a ‑‑ you are several beams of sunshine right now. Thank you for what you're doing in these hearings. Thank you for saying the tough things. I mean, you asked John Kerry this about Egypt. Go, play the question.

RAND PAUL: We've heard President Morsi's comments about Zionists and Israelis being bloodsuckers and descendants of apes and pigs. Do you think it's wise to send them F‑16s and Abram tanks?

KERRY: I think those comments are reprehensible.

GLENN: Oh, jeez. Stop. I can't hear it. All he said was it's reprehensible and he's explained them. How do you explain pigs and apes? And then we look at them as any kind of ally. Were you satisfied with his answer?

RAND PAUL: Absolutely not. And I think at the very least, at the very least the weapons should be held up and for six months to a year see if they are going to be a stable government but really we don't have the money to be doing it. All it does is make Israel's job harder because if we give 20 F‑16s to Egypt, Israel thinks they have got to have 25 Neu new one and it's an arms race that we're funding both sides of. But it's a real mistake to send it to countries who really don't seem to be part of the civilized world.

GLENN: You know one of the things that I ‑‑ I mean, I'm becoming more libertarian every day, and I'm not an isolationist but I think we have made so many mistakes because we believe the enemy of the enemy is my friend.

RAND PAUL: Well, we did it. For ten years we support the mujahideen and guess who was part of the mujahideen? Bin Laden.

GLENN: Yeah.

RAND PAUL: And so for about ten years, for an entire decade we supported radical jihad. We thought it was clever that we were for these radical Islamists because they hated the Soviets. Little did we know they also hate us. When they were turning on the Soviets, they turned on us.

GLENN: Right. But it's insane to think that the enemy of my enemy is my friend and you're going to get anywhere. And these guys, what is so frustrating for all of us who just watch this is these guys are not even saying the things ‑‑ you know, they were all the ones who were against wars, they're against the, you know, the unilateral decision of this president is go to war, higgledy‑piggledy. You brought this up with John Kerry, and here's your question and listen to his answer. Do you have it? Hang on just a second.

STU: Yeah, hang on.

GLENN: Hang on just a second. Hang on.

RAND PAUL: For when people disagree with you, they just go ahead and do it. In the early 1970s, you know, after Vietnam, you were quite critical of the bombing in Cambodia because I think you felt that it wasn't authorized by congress. Has your opinion changed about the bombing in Cambodia?

GLENN: So good.

RAND PAUL: How's Cambodia different than Libya?

KERRY: No, nor did my opinion change or has it ever altered about the war in Vietnam itself where I don't believe, and I argued then.

RAND PAUL: Is Cambodia different than Libya?

KERRY: Well, Cambod‑ ‑‑ yeah, it is. Because it was an extension of a war that was being prosecuted without the involvement of congress after a number of years.

GLENN: What? How did you not just ‑‑

PAT: Oh, my gosh.

GLENN: How did you not laugh at that, Rand?

RAND PAUL: Well, see the whole thing is this is why foreign policy is so muddled. And it's like he says, "I believe in absolutes." Well, yeah, the Constitution is pretty clear about the separation of powers. It is a congressional power to declare war. And his answer basically was, "Well, yes, I agree with that except for when I don't agree with that."

PAT: Exactly. That was his answer. I mean, he didn't phrase it like that, but that was the answer.

RAND PAUL: When it's impractical, basically when congress opposes you, it becomes impractical. But, you know, the thing is, is when we were attacked in 1941, December 7th, the morning of December 8th the president came before congress and said, "We've been attacked," and I think we voted almost unanimously to declare war on Japan.

GLENN: Right.

RAND PAUL: And I think that's what would happen in any way anytime when we were attacked. When we were attacked on 9/11, I would have gone to congress and I wouldn't have done just an authorization of force, although I know it may be quibbling about a difference. I would have said we are declaring war on those who are ‑‑

GLENN: We should have.

RAND PAUL: ‑‑ these people.

GLENN: We should have. It would have cleared up an awful lot of things. We should have. The ‑‑ let me just switch gears here real quick on Hillary Clinton. You were almost, you were almost freedom porn the way you were ‑‑ I mean, I almost always ‑‑ almost turned the lights down in my office while you were addressing Hillary Clinton because you said to her, you would have fired her. And any sane person would say the same thing. We didn't get a single thing out of Hillary Clinton on Benghazi. When Michael McCaul asked why wasn't the ambassador even there on September 11th, he got gaveled. We didn't get any answers, did we.

RAND PAUL: No. Well, the only answer we did get is we now know for certainty she did not read the pleas for help, she did not read any of the requests for security and I think that really to me is inexcusable. She says, oh, I get a million cables. I don't care if she reads every cable from Bulgaria or Astonia, but from the top five most dangerous spots in the world, she should be reading those cables. And I likened it to being like a physician. A physician has triage, but I'm still in charge of it and I have to instruct the people in triage to get back people who are seriously sick. She needed to instruct her inferiors, the people who worked for her that any information about Libya needs to be on my desk and I need to see it.

GLENN: So where do we go from here? I mean, first of all John Kerry's our next, our next Secretary of State. Do you think?

KERRY: Well, you know, the thing is I think that we don't change at all. I asked him about Pakistan. I said, will you condition aid on them releasing Dr. Afridi who helped us to get Bin Laden, and he just frankly said no.

GLENN: Okay. This is crazy.

RAND PAUL: So he said he'd plead with them, and I said, look, they don't understand anything but power. You have power over them because they want our money. At the very least if you're going to give it to them, use it as leverage to get them to release this man.

PAT: Amazing too when you were talking about the F‑16s going to Egypt despite all they've said about Israel how he waffled on that. I mean, one thing after another. And this guy is probably almost for sure going to be our next Secretary of State.

GLENN: Oh, yeah.

PAT: It's despicable.

GLENN: And he is ‑‑ I mean, he was born at a Waffle House.

PAT: Oh, yeah.

GLENN: I mean, there's nobody more waffling than John Kerry.

RAND PAUL: Well, and it hasn't been a month ago that President Morsi was at a prayer meeting with a radical Sheik.

GLENN: I know.

RAND PAUL: Standing next to him saying death to Israel and anybody who supports Israel. And so it's like ‑‑

GLENN: And wait, wait. Don't forget, and the new capital of the Caliphate will be Jerusalem.

RAND PAUL: Yeah.

GLENN: That was at that same meeting.

RAND PAUL: Yeah. So the thing is what we've elected or what they've gotten in Egypt is a very radical government that I think can't be counted on not to attack Israel and we shouldn't be giving them weapons. Absolutely. Until there's some kind of stability, and even they we don't have the money to be doing it anyway.

GLENN: Will anybody pay for the mistakes in Benghazi? Will we ever find out for sure what happened?

RAND PAUL: You know, that was my point in putting out that her resignation is her being held accountable and culpable for these mistakes because she wants to make it as if, "Oh, yeah, I'm responsible but I'm not accountable."

GLENN: Right.

RAND PAUL: And nobody was fired.

GLENN: That's crazy.

RAND PAUL: And what really got me going on this is I think going back to the original 9/11, we did a huge investigation. We found out we had the 20th hijacker. We found out that one FBI agent requested 70 times for a permit or for a warrant and nobody would let him do it. We had all these mistakes and no one was fired. We spent trillions of dollars and no one was fired. A lot of these were human errors. And when humans make mistakes, it doesn't make them bad people. I don't think Hillary Clinton had bad motives. I don't think she's unpatriotic, but I think she made horrible decisions that really at some point make her I think not eligible to be in a position to make those decisions again.

GLENN: So one other, one other topic. Today or this week is the 40th anniversary of Roe versus Wade. It is absolutely incredible some of the stuff that is coming out now from the left on ‑‑ I mean, one, one on Salon Magazine, you have to read this. It's an incredible article from a lefty that says, "You know, okay. I never ‑‑ when I was carrying my children, I never doubted that that was life inside of me, but ‑‑ this is a quote ‑‑ not all life is equal. We're headed down a scary road with these people.

RAND PAUL: So much for equal rights, huh?

GLENN: Yeah, yeah.

RAND PAUL: So much for the whole idea that we are all the same, no matter what color our skin is, whether we have disabilities or not. But if you're pretty small and you're defenseless, then you don't have any rights.

GLENN: Pretty frightening. You're speaking at the March of ‑‑ the March for Life rally today?

RAND PAUL: Yeah, this will be my first time. I tried to get there last year but the TSA had other ideas for me last year.

GLENN: That's right.

RAND PAUL: So this year I'm actually in Washington. So I don't have to go through an airport to get to March For Life. But I'm excited about it, it's a big crowd and I'm excited to be there in a couple of hours.

GLENN: Tell me quickly, square the libertarian point of view that there should be no regulation on anything you do.

RAND PAUL: Well, the thing is most libertarians believe in what's called the nonaggression principle, that you can't agress against other people. So once you define where life begins, if those in the womb are alive, all libertarians then would believe in the government preventing you from agressing against that individual. It all has to do with when does life begin.

GLENN: I will tell you Senator Rand Paul, I believe in my lifetime the first libertarian that I believe could be president of the United States. You make sense, you're rational, you're reasonable, and you look at the facts on the ground, where we are now and you're not ‑‑ you're not like, "Hey, let's legalize heroin on, you know, Day Number 1." It's just you have to move slowly and move the country in the right direction and stand ‑‑ and still stand for your principles, which I think you do.

RAND PAUL: Glenn, I think also the country's ready. The narrative is out there.

GLENN: Yes.

RAND PAUL: People know Republicans aren't winning. We start out minus 170 electoral votes. We're going to have to look to some different kind of candidate the next time around.

GLENN: Yes.

RAND PAUL: Because we just are getting to the point where we're never going to win again unless we approach and embrace some kind of new candidacy.

GLENN: Well, I will tell you this: I think the GOP is the Whig party. I think the GOP is over. It just hasn't caught up to the GOP yet. And I hope we don't have to lose another presidential election for them to understand that. But the GOP is over. They have discredited themselves too much. They don't stand for anything anymore except winning. And it's despicable. Stand for principles and then win or lose based on those principles.

RAND PAUL: Absolutely. That's how Reagan grew the party. He didn't try to please everybody. He didn't pander but he spoke, he spoke truth, and people came.

GLENN: Rand, thank you very much. I appreciate all your hard work and hope to see you again soon.

RAND PAUL: Thanks, Glenn.

GLENN: You bet. Senator Rand Paul.

The Woodrow Wilson strategy to get out of Mother’s Day

Stock Montage / Contributor, Xinhua News Agency / Contributor | Getty Images

I’ve got a potentially helpful revelation that’s gonna blow the lid off your plans for this Sunday. It’s Mother’s Day.

Yeah, that sacred day where you’re guilt-tripped into buying flowers, braving crowded brunch buffets, and pretending you didn’t forget to mail the card. But what if I told you… you don’t have to do it? That’s right, there’s a loophole, a get-out-of-Mother’s-Day-free card, and it’s stamped with the name of none other than… Woodrow Wilson (I hate that guy).

Back in 1914, ol’ Woody Wilson signed a proclamation that officially made Mother’s Day a national holiday. Second Sunday in May, every year. He said it was a day to “publicly express our love and reverence for the mothers of our country.” Sounds sweet, right? Until you peel back the curtain.

See, Wilson wasn’t some sentimental guy sitting around knitting doilies for his mom. No, no, no. This was a calculated move.

The idea for Mother’s Day had been floating around for decades, pushed by influential voices like Julia Ward Howe. By 1911, states were jumping on the bandwagon, but it took Wilson to make it federal. Why? Because he was a master of optics. This guy loved big, symbolic gestures to distract from the real stuff he was up to, like, oh, I don’t know, reshaping the entire federal government!

So here’s the deal: if you’re looking for an excuse to skip Mother’s Day, just lean into this. Say, “Sorry, Mom, I’m not celebrating a holiday cooked up by Woodrow Wilson!” I mean, think about it – this is the guy who gave us the Federal Reserve, the income tax, and don’t even get me started on his assault on basic liberties during World War I. You wanna trust THAT guy with your Sunday plans? I don’t think so! You tell your mom, “Look, I love you, but I’m not observing a Progressive holiday. I’m keeping my brunch money in protest.”

Now, I know what you might be thinking.

“Glenn, my mom’s gonna kill me if I try this.” Fair point. Moms can be scary. But hear me out: you can spin this. Tell her you’re honoring her EVERY DAY instead of some government-mandated holiday. You don’t need Wilson’s permission to love your mom! You can bake her a cake in June, call her in July, or, here’s a wild idea, visit her WITHOUT a Woodrow Wilson federal proclamation guilting you into it.

Shocking Christian massacres unveiled

Aldara Zarraoa / Contributor | Getty Images

Is a Christian Genocide unfolding overseas?

Recent reports suggest an alarming escalation in violence against Christians, raising questions about whether these acts constitute genocide under international law. Recently, Glenn hosted former U.S. Army Special Forces Sniper Tim Kennedy, who discussed a predictive model that forecasts a surge in global Christian persecution for the summer of 2025.

From Africa to Asia and the Middle East, extreme actions—some described as genocidal—have intensified over the past year. Over 380 million Christians worldwide face high levels of persecution, a number that continues to climb. With rising international concern, the United Nations and human rights groups are urging protective measures by the global community. Is a Christian genocide being waged in the far corners of the globe? Where are they taking place, and what is being done?

India: Hindu Extremist Violence Escalates

Yawar Nazir / Contributor | Getty Images

In India, attacks on Christians have surged as Hindu extremist groups gain influence within the country. In February 2025, Hindu nationalist leader Aadesh Soni organized a 50,000-person rally in Chhattisgarh, where he called for the rape and murder of all Christians in nearby villages and demanded the execution of Christian leaders to erase Christianity. Other incidents include forced conversions, such as a June 2024 attack in Chhattisgarh, where a Hindu mob gave Christian families a 10-day ultimatum to convert to Hinduism. In December 2024, a Christian man in Uttar Pradesh was attacked, forcibly converted, and paraded while the mob chanted "Death to Jesus."

The United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) recommends designating India a "Country of Particular Concern" and imposing targeted sanctions on those perpetrating these attacks. The international community is increasingly alarmed by the rising tide of religious violence in India.

Syria: Sectarian Violence Post-Regime Change

LOUAI BESHARA / Contributor | Getty Images

Following the collapse of the Assad regime in December 2024, Syria has seen a wave of sectarian violence targeting religious minorities, including Christians, with over 1,000 killed in early 2025. It remains unclear whether Christians are deliberately targeted or caught in broader conflicts, but many fear persecution by the new regime or extremist groups. Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), a dominant rebel group and known al-Qaeda splinter group now in power, is known for anti-Christian sentiments, heightening fears of increased persecution.

Christians, especially converts from Islam, face severe risks in the unstable post-regime environment. The international community is calling for humanitarian aid and protection for Syria’s vulnerable minority communities.

Democratic Republic of Congo: A "Silent Genocide"

Hugh Kinsella Cunningham / Stringer | Getty Images

In February 2025, the Allied Democratic Forces (ADF), an ISIS-affiliated group, beheaded 70 Christians—men, women, and children—in a Protestant church in North Kivu, Democratic Republic of Congo, after tying their hands. This horrific massacre, described as a "silent genocide" reminiscent of the 1994 Rwandan genocide, has shocked the global community.

Since 1996, the ADF and other militias have killed over six million people, with Christians frequently targeted. A Christmas 2024 attack killed 46, further decimating churches in the region. With violence escalating, humanitarian organizations are urging immediate international intervention to address the crisis.

POLL: Starbase exposed: Musk’s vision or corporate takeover?

MIGUEL J. RODRIGUEZ CARRILLO / Contributor | Getty Images

Is Starbase the future of innovation or a step too far?

Elon Musk’s ambitious Starbase project in South Texas is reshaping Boca Chica into a cutting-edge hub for SpaceX’s Starship program, promising thousands of jobs and a leap toward Mars colonization. Supporters see Musk as a visionary, driving economic growth and innovation in a historically underserved region. However, local critics, including Brownsville residents and activists, argue that SpaceX’s presence raises rents, restricts beach access, and threatens environmental harm, with Starbase’s potential incorporation as a city sparking fears of unchecked corporate control. As pro-Musk advocates clash with anti-Musk skeptics, will Starbase unite the community or deepen the divide?

Let us know what you think in the poll below:

Is Starbase’s development a big win for South Texas?

Should Starbase become its own city?

Is Elon Musk’s vision more of a benefit than a burden for the region?

Shocking truth behind Trump-Zelenskyy mineral deal unveiled

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy have finalized a landmark agreement that will shape the future of U.S.-Ukraine relations. The agreement focuses on mineral access and war recovery.

After a tense March meeting, Trump and Zelenskyy signed a deal on Wednesday, April 30, 2025, granting the U.S. preferential mineral rights in Ukraine in exchange for continued military support. Glenn analyzed an earlier version of the agreement in March, when Zelenskyy rejected it, highlighting its potential benefits for America, Ukraine, and Europe. Glenn praised the deal’s strategic alignment with U.S. interests, including reducing reliance on China for critical minerals and fostering regional peace.

However, the agreement signed this week differs from the March proposal Glenn praised. Negotiations led to significant revisions, reflecting compromises on both sides. What changes were made? What did each leader seek, and what did they achieve? How will this deal impact the future of U.S.-Ukraine relations and global geopolitics? Below, we break down the key aspects of the agreement.

What did Trump want?

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Trump aimed to curb what many perceive as Ukraine’s overreliance on U.S. aid while securing strategic advantages for America. His primary goals included obtaining reimbursement for the billions in military aid provided to Ukraine, gaining exclusive access to Ukraine’s valuable minerals (such as titanium, uranium, and lithium), and reducing Western dependence on China for critical resources. These minerals are essential for aerospace, energy, and technology sectors, and Trump saw their acquisition as a way to bolster U.S. national security and economic competitiveness. Additionally, he sought to advance peace talks to end the Russia-Ukraine war, positioning the U.S. as a key mediator.

Ultimately, Trump secured preferential—but not exclusive—rights to extract Ukraine’s minerals through the United States-Ukraine Reconstruction Investment Fund, as outlined in the agreement. The U.S. will not receive reimbursement for past aid, but future military contributions will count toward the joint fund, designed to support Ukraine’s post-war recovery. Zelenskyy’s commitment to peace negotiations under U.S. leadership aligns with Trump’s goal of resolving the conflict, giving him leverage in discussions with Russia.

These outcomes partially meet Trump’s objectives. The preferential mineral rights strengthen U.S. access to critical resources, but the lack of exclusivity and reimbursement limits the deal’s financial benefits. The peace commitment, however, positions Trump as a central figure in shaping the war’s resolution, potentially enhancing his diplomatic influence.

What did Zelenskyy want?

Global Images Ukraine / Contributor | Getty Images

Zelenskyy sought to sustain U.S. military and economic support without the burden of repaying past aid, which has been critical for Ukraine’s defense against Russia. He also prioritized reconstruction funds to rebuild Ukraine’s war-torn economy and infrastructure. Security guarantees from the U.S. to deter future Russian aggression were a key demand, though controversial, as they risked entangling America in long-term commitments. Additionally, Zelenskyy aimed to retain control over Ukraine’s mineral wealth to safeguard national sovereignty and align with the country’s European Union membership aspirations.

The final deal delivered several of Zelenskyy’s priorities. The reconstruction fund, supported by future U.S. aid, provides a financial lifeline for Ukraine’s recovery without requiring repayment of past assistance. Ukraine retained ownership of its subsoil and decision-making authority over mineral extraction, granting only preferential access to the U.S. However, Zelenskyy conceded on security guarantees, a significant compromise, and agreed to pursue peace talks under Trump’s leadership, which may involve territorial or political concessions to Russia.

Zelenskyy’s outcomes reflect a delicate balance. The reconstruction fund and retained mineral control bolster Ukraine’s economic and sovereign interests, but the absence of security guarantees and pressure to negotiate peace could strain domestic support and challenge Ukraine’s long-term stability.

What does this mean for the future?

Handout / Handout | Getty Images

While Trump didn’t secure all his demands, the deal advances several of his broader strategic goals. By gaining access to Ukraine’s mineral riches, the U.S. undermines China’s dominance over critical elements like lithium and graphite, essential for technology and energy industries. This shift reduces American and European dependence on Chinese supply chains, strengthening Western industrial and tech sectors. Most significantly, the agreement marks a pivotal step toward peace in Europe. Ending the Russia-Ukraine war, which has claimed thousands of lives, is a top priority for Trump, and Zelenskyy’s commitment to U.S.-led peace talks enhances Trump’s leverage in negotiations with Russia. Notably, the deal avoids binding U.S. commitments to Ukraine’s long-term defense, preserving flexibility for future administrations.

The deal’s broader implications align with the vision Glenn outlined in March, when he praised its potential to benefit America, Ukraine, and Europe by securing resources and creating peace. While the final agreement differs from Glenn's hopes, it still achieves key goals he outlined.

Glenn's Show Prep