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.

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.

URGENT: Supreme Court case could redefine religious liberty

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