Sen. Rand Paul talks immigration reform and his plan to balance the budget in 5 years

Senator Rand Paul has been blowing up in the headlines since his epic thirteen hour filibuster a few weeks ago. His CPAC speech received praise from the more conservative wing of the GOP, he's being labeled as a future leader of the part, there have been a few hints around a possible presidential run in 2016, and, most recently, he has introduced a few bill proposals.

This morning the Senator joined Glenn on radio to discuss a few of those proposals, his immigration bill and his budget proposal. Glenn kicked the discussion off with the immigration bill.

Yesterday, after Rand spoke at the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce to discuss comprehensive immigration reform, the mainstream media started buzzing about the Senator allegedly taking being for amnesty — a "path to citizenship". Glenn gave Senator Paul a chance to set the record straight.

"Help me out on the 'path to citizenship', because that is a red light for a lot of people," Glenn questioned.

"I think a lot of that was misreported yesterday," Senator Paul responded, "because in my speech to the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce that never came up, the word 'citizenship'."

True. In fact, the only time Rand Paul mentioned "citizenship" was when he was referring to himself as a teenager, "not being a model citizen".

"We didn't mention citizenship, but what my amendment is called is Trust But Verify. Which means, in the past we've been snookered into doing immigration reform with the promise that border security's going to come later. I think conservatives, if they want conservatives to be part of this and if they want us to support immigration reform, we have to have a guarantee," Sen. Paul continued. "We have to have a verifiable guarantee of border security.  So in my amendment what has to happen is each year there are certain border security targets that have to be medicine. An investigator general looks at this, the border patrol looks at this, and does a report.  We're going to have the governors of each of the border states look at this as well.  And then that report comes back and has to be voted on. The big difference is it has to be voted on by congress. The bipartisan commission is saying, oh, the president will issue a report. But that, to me, means a rubber stamp and not much.  So ours is mostly about ensuring border security."

Sen. Paul clarified that he does not want to create any new path to citizenship.

"The only thing new is we're saying that if you're here and you've been here and you're working and you want to work and you don't want to get welfare, we'll give you a work visa.  If you're here and you have a work visa, you can get in the same line that already exists for citizenship.  This isn't a new line.  This is like the same line if you're in Mexico City and you want to come to this country, you get if line," he said.

Not shockingly, this is what everyone in the mainstream media is getting wrong. The media is making the reform amendment sound like Senator Paul is proposing that everyone will become a citizen, which is absolutely not the case.

"You know, one of the things I repeat in my speeches all the time as Milton Friedman stated, you can't have open borders in a welfare state," the Senator said. "And we've got the welfare state.  So do you have to have a secure border. You also have to have a secure border for national security reasons."

According to Senator Paul, his amendment is for conservatives do want some kind of reform, but refuse to vote for any unless there is a guarantee that the border is going to be secure.

"We have serious problems," Glenn started. "First of all, the door to citizenship is too narrow.  It's not that it is open.  They are coming through the windows, not through the door.  So the door is too narrow.  We have to make the ‑‑ we have to make the path to citizenship to come into this country from another place easier. Because we want new people to come.  It replenishes us and it makes those of us who have forgotten what it's like to be an American, or what an honor it is to be an American, it refreshes that.  It's important.  But nobody trusts anybody in Washington on the border because they all say they are going to do something and they don't."

Rand Paul confirmed Glenn's point by explaining that most of the people who are in the country illegal came so that way because legal immigration is not working. A million workers came in to pick crops last year, but only 65,000 work visas were given. The agricultural work visa program has to be fixed.

Glenn transitioned to Senator Paul's budget plan which is being released today.

"We're going to balance the budget in five years," Rand told Glenn. "We do it by downsizing government.  Basically sending a lot of powers and money back to the states and the responsibility for education which has always been a state function, send it back to the states."

Five years — that's half the amount of time that Paul Ryan's plan. Ryan's budget actually doubles the budget of 2002 and adds another 3.4% increase per year over the next ten years. Yet the Democrats are somehow calling it "draconian". What does Sen. Paul's plan do that makes it so much more efficient?

"The Ryan budget goes from the growth of government of 5% a year to a growth of government of 3.4% a year.  So government still grows under his," Senator Paul explained. "In ours we go ahead and eliminate some departments.  We eliminate the Department of Education, most of the Department of Energy, most of the Department of Commerce."

Music to Glenn's ears.

Senator Paul went on to explain that they're taking things like the Department on Energy and cutting the federal loans to the Kennedy & Kaiser types, along with the DOE loans to companies like Solyndra and BrightSource. He is eliminating the government's role in paying for corporate CEOs around the world to make trips across the globe to make business deals.

"The average CEO makes about 7 million a year, why does the American taxpayer have to climb around on U.S. Government jets," Sen. Paul said.

Sen. Paul went on to explain where else his plan makes cuts:

"Well, basically Department of Education, Department of Energy, Department of Commerce.  A lot of the Department of Commerce is corporate welfare and I think we as Republicans need to show that we're not the party of just big business.  We're the party that says, you know what, we're going to cut government waste even if it helps, you know, rich business friends of ours and not be just this crony type of government.

 

And then Housing and Urban Development really has torn down more houses than it's built.  The government can be involved but I think at a local level.  Probably Habitat For Humanity has done more for building houses than HUD has done in its entire existence."

His budget also removes the waste from Social Security and Medicare. With S.S. they reduce spending through means testing, gradually raising the age. His plan for Medicare allows every senior citizen to have the same health plan that congress does.

"It saves a trillion dollars over ten years and it also allows us to have a sustainable entitlement program, basically fixes Social Security for 75 years," Sen Paul explained. "And then if that's not enough for you, Glenn, we have one more thing. We do a flat income tax of 17% which gives a $600 billion stimulus to the economy and allows for, you know, we estimate somewhere between 8 and 12 million new jobs."

Rand Paul's flat tax is 17% with an exemption for the first $50,000. So, it's graduated in that anyone making under $50k wouldn't pay an income tax.

"I will tell you if this would have been Romney's plan, we would be calling him president today," Glenn responded after hearing Rand's plan.

Glenn also warned that he was going to get slaughtered in the press — and not just from the left. He thinking the Senator should expect for attacks from the progressive Republicans as well.

"Look at how many people lose power here," Glenn stated. "I mean, this is the kind of thinking that America needs."

"The real problem, the reason why we're not getting to this, is so many Republicans are trapped into this idea that tax reform has to be revenue‑neutral" Sen Paul responded. "I want tax reform to leave more money in the hands of those who earned it and more money in the states in which people live — because that's the only economic stimulus that's ever worked and that's leaving money in the hands of the people who earn it."

Both Glenn and Sen. Paul emphasized how out-of-control the federal government's spending is, and how ridiculous their's and the media's reaction has been to the sequester.

"They had a St. Patty's Day party at the White House but they are going to cancel the Easter egg hunt," Glenn pointed out. "And if they think that this is going to be ‑‑ I mean, I love this.  The media and everybody is trying to make this into a big deal and wasting time on Capitol Hill to try and get these things reinstated.  Why?  Are you kidding me?  The president says he doesn't have time to enforce the laws, you know, on pot.  So we're going to put ourselves into some sort of constitutional crisis where, you know, whose law do you enforce?  Do we enforce all of the laws, some of the federal laws, none of the federal?  You don't get into that and he's arguing about the stupid Easter egg roll?"

"Here's the thing, Glenn.  He's releasing criminals that we're in captivity that were immigrants that were felons.  So he's releasing these criminals because he says he's saving money.  But the federal government last year had $117 billion that was unaccounted for, improperly spent.  They are not exactly sure where it went.  They say the defense department or the Pentagon, $25 billion could be saved just simply by doing an audit.  They say $7 billion in the Pentagon is spent on things that have nothing to do with the military.  Or national defense.  And yet he can't ‑‑ says he doesn't have enough money to keep people in prison.  So it's inexcusable," Sen. Paul said.

Senator Paul is optimistic though, he believes the majority of Americans are waking up to the hypocritical actions of the current administration.

"I think it's backfiring on him.  I think the American people are going to see that he's playing games and letting go criminals.  And I think he's going to have repercussions for that."

Another issue that is likely to backfire on this administration is their attempt to send a German family seeking political asylum back to German — after they were ruled on favorably in court. Glenn explained this situation, which he discussed yesterday on radio, to Sen. Paul.

"All they were trying to do was homeschool their children in Germany, but there is a law done by the Nazis.  It's an old Adolf Hitler law that was never removed from the book that says you cannot homeschool your kids. They were going to take their kids away. So they moved here to the United States, they did it the right way, and they asked for political asylum," Glenn explained. "They won in court, and this administration is now arguing in court that homeschooling your children is not a basic human right."

"Well, you know, I'm a big fan of homeschooling and you've just given me an idea," Sen. Paul responded. "I think maybe we'll see if we can file an amicus or a friend of the court on their behalf and see if we can get involved with that because one member of my staff back in the Seventies when he was a kid was home schooled and his parents in Kentucky were given a year in prison for homeschooling and while their case was still pending the appeal, we got the law changed in Kentucky.  So in the 1970s it was illegal to homeschool and much of America.  But we've changed those laws.  And if the president thinks that homeschooling is something that can keep you out of the country, we're going to make sure he knows otherwise."

EXCLUSIVE: Tech Ethicist reveals 5 ways to control AI NOW

MANAURE QUINTERO / Contributor | Getty Images

By now, many of us are familiar with AI and its potential benefits and threats. However, unless you're a tech tycoon, it can feel like you have little influence over the future of artificial intelligence.

For years, Glenn has warned about the dangers of rapidly developing AI technologies that have taken the world by storm.

He acknowledges their significant benefits but emphasizes the need to establish proper boundaries and ethics now, while we still have control. But since most people aren’t Silicon Valley tech leaders making the decisions, how can they help keep AI in check?

Recently, Glenn interviewed Tristan Harris, a tech ethicist deeply concerned about the potential harm of unchecked AI, to discuss its societal implications. Harris highlighted a concerning new piece of legislation proposed by Texas Senator Ted Cruz. This legislation proposes a state-level moratorium on AI regulation, meaning only the federal government could regulate AI. Harris noted that there’s currently no Federal plan for regulating AI. Until the federal government establishes a plan, tech companies would have nearly free rein with their AI. And we all know how slowly the federal government moves.

This is where you come in. Tristan Harris shared with Glenn the top five actions you should urge your representatives to take regarding AI, including opposing the moratorium until a concrete plan is in place. Now is your chance to influence the future of AI. Contact your senator and congressman today and share these five crucial steps they must take to keep AI in check:

Ban engagement-optimized AI companions for kids

Create legislation that will prevent AI from being designed to maximize addiction, sexualization, flattery, and attachment disorders, and to protect young people’s mental health and ability to form real-life friendships.

Establish basic liability laws

Companies need to be held accountable when their products cause real-world harm.

Pass increased whistleblower protections

Protect concerned technologists working inside the AI labs from facing untenable pressures and threats that prevent them from warning the public when the AI rollout is unsafe or crosses dangerous red lines.

Prevent AI from having legal rights

Enact laws so AIs don’t have protected speech or have their own bank accounts, making sure our legal system works for human interests over AI interests.

Oppose the state moratorium on AI 

Call your congressman or Senator Cruz’s office, and demand they oppose the state moratorium on AI without a plan for how we will set guardrails for this technology.

Glenn: Only Trump dared to deliver on decades of empty promises

Tasos Katopodis / Stringer | Getty Images

The Islamic regime has been killing Americans since 1979. Now Trump’s response proves we’re no longer playing defense — we’re finally hitting back.

The United States has taken direct military action against Iran’s nuclear program. Whatever you think of the strike, it’s over. It’s happened. And now, we have to predict what happens next. I want to help you understand the gravity of this situation: what happened, what it means, and what might come next. To that end, we need to begin with a little history.

Since 1979, Iran has been at war with us — even if we refused to call it that.

We are either on the verge of a remarkable strategic victory or a devastating global escalation. Time will tell.

It began with the hostage crisis, when 66 Americans were seized and 52 were held for over a year by the radical Islamic regime. Four years later, 17 more Americans were murdered in the U.S. Embassy bombing in Beirut, followed by 241 Marines in the Beirut barracks bombing.

Then came the Khobar Towers bombing in 1996, which killed 19 more U.S. airmen. Iran had its fingerprints all over it.

In Iraq and Afghanistan, Iranian-backed proxies killed hundreds of American soldiers. From 2001 to 2020 in Afghanistan and 2003 to 2011 in Iraq, Iran supplied IEDs and tactical support.

The Iranians have plotted assassinations and kidnappings on U.S. soil — in 2011, 2021, and again in 2024 — and yet we’ve never really responded.

The precedent for U.S. retaliation has always been present, but no president has chosen to pull the trigger until this past weekend. President Donald Trump struck decisively. And what our military pulled off this weekend was nothing short of extraordinary.

Operation Midnight Hammer

The strike was reportedly called Operation Midnight Hammer. It involved as many as 175 U.S. aircraft, including 12 B-2 stealth bombers — out of just 19 in our entire arsenal. Those bombers are among the most complex machines in the world, and they were kept mission-ready by some of the finest mechanics on the planet.

USAF / Handout | Getty Images

To throw off Iranian radar and intelligence, some bombers flew west toward Guam — classic misdirection. The rest flew east, toward the real targets.

As the B-2s approached Iranian airspace, U.S. submarines launched dozens of Tomahawk missiles at Iran’s fortified nuclear facilities. Minutes later, the bombers dropped 14 MOPs — massive ordnance penetrators — each designed to drill deep into the earth and destroy underground bunkers. These bombs are the size of an F-16 and cost millions of dollars apiece. They are so accurate, I’ve been told they can hit the top of a soda can from 15,000 feet.

They were built for this mission — and we’ve been rehearsing this run for 15 years.

If the satellite imagery is accurate — and if what my sources tell me is true — the targeted nuclear sites were utterly destroyed. We’ll likely rely on the Israelis to confirm that on the ground.

This was a master class in strategy, execution, and deterrence. And it proved that only the United States could carry out a strike like this. I am very proud of our military, what we are capable of doing, and what we can accomplish.

What comes next

We don’t yet know how Iran will respond, but many of the possibilities are troubling. The Iranians could target U.S. forces across the Middle East. On Monday, Tehran launched 20 missiles at U.S. bases in Qatar, Syria, and Kuwait, to no effect. God forbid, they could also unleash Hezbollah or other terrorist proxies to strike here at home — and they just might.

Iran has also threatened to shut down the Strait of Hormuz — the artery through which nearly a fifth of the world’s oil flows. On Sunday, Iran’s parliament voted to begin the process. If the Supreme Council and the ayatollah give the go-ahead, we could see oil prices spike to $150 or even $200 a barrel.

That would be catastrophic.

The 2008 financial collapse was pushed over the edge when oil hit $130. Western economies — including ours — simply cannot sustain oil above $120 for long. If this conflict escalates and the Strait is closed, the global economy could unravel.

The strike also raises questions about regime stability. Will it spark an uprising, or will the Islamic regime respond with a brutal crackdown on dissidents?

Early signs aren’t hopeful. Reports suggest hundreds of arrests over the weekend and at least one dissident executed on charges of spying for Israel. The regime’s infamous morality police, the Gasht-e Ershad, are back on the streets. Every phone, every vehicle — monitored. The U.S. embassy in Qatar issued a shelter-in-place warning for Americans.

Russia and China both condemned the strike. On Monday, a senior Iranian official flew to Moscow to meet with Vladimir Putin. That meeting should alarm anyone paying attention. Their alliance continues to deepen — and that’s a serious concern.

Now we pray

We are either on the verge of a remarkable strategic victory or a devastating global escalation. Time will tell. But either way, President Trump didn’t start this. He inherited it — and he took decisive action.

The difference is, he did what they all said they would do. He didn’t send pallets of cash in the dead of night. He didn’t sign another failed treaty.

He acted. Now, we pray. For peace, for wisdom, and for the strength to meet whatever comes next.


This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Globalize the Intifada? Why Mamdani’s plan spells DOOM for America

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

If New Yorkers hand City Hall to Zohran Mamdani, they’re not voting for change. They’re opening the door to an alliance of socialism, Islamism, and chaos.

It only took 25 years for New York City to go from the resilient, flag-waving pride following the 9/11 attacks to a political fever dream. To quote Michael Malice, “I'm old enough to remember when New Yorkers endured 9/11 instead of voting for it.”

Malice is talking about Zohran Mamdani, a Democratic Socialist assemblyman from Queens now eyeing the mayor’s office. Mamdani, a 33-year-old state representative emerging from relative political obscurity, is now receiving substantial funding for his mayoral campaign from the Council on American-Islamic Relations.

CAIR has a long and concerning history, including being born out of the Muslim Brotherhood and named an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation terror funding case. Why would the group have dropped $100,000 into a PAC backing Mamdani’s campaign?

Mamdani blends political Islam with Marxist economics — two ideologies that have left tens of millions dead in the 20th century alone.

Perhaps CAIR has a vested interest in Mamdani’s call to “globalize the intifada.” That’s not a call for peaceful protest. Intifada refers to historic uprisings of Muslims against what they call the “Israeli occupation of Palestine.” Suicide bombings and street violence are part of the playbook. So when Mamdani says he wants to “globalize” that, who exactly is the enemy in this global scenario? Because it sure sounds like he's saying America is the new Israel, and anyone who supports Western democracy is the new Zionist.

Mamdani tried to clean up his language by citing the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum, which once used “intifada” in an Arabic-language article to describe the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising. So now he’s comparing Palestinians to Jewish victims of the Nazis? If that doesn’t twist your stomach into knots, you’re not paying attention.

If you’re “globalizing” an intifada, and positioning Israel — and now America — as the Nazis, that’s not a cry for human rights. That’s a call for chaos and violence.

Rising Islamism

But hey, this is New York. Faculty members at Columbia University — where Mamdani’s own father once worked — signed a letter defending students who supported Hamas after October 7. They also contributed to Mamdani’s mayoral campaign. And his father? He blamed Ronald Reagan and the religious right for inspiring Islamic terrorism, as if the roots of 9/11 grew in Washington, not the caves of Tora Bora.

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

This isn’t about Islam as a faith. We should distinguish between Islam and Islamism. Islam is a religion followed peacefully by millions. Islamism is something entirely different — an ideology that seeks to merge mosque and state, impose Sharia law, and destroy secular liberal democracies from within. Islamism isn’t about prayer and fasting. It’s about power.

Criticizing Islamism is not Islamophobia. It is not an attack on peaceful Muslims. In fact, Muslims are often its first victims.

Islamism is misogynistic, theocratic, violent, and supremacist. It’s hostile to free speech, religious pluralism, gay rights, secularism — even to moderate Muslims. Yet somehow, the progressive left — the same left that claims to fight for feminism, LGBTQ rights, and free expression — finds itself defending candidates like Mamdani. You can’t make this stuff up.

Blending the worst ideologies

And if that weren’t enough, Mamdani also identifies as a Democratic Socialist. He blends political Islam with Marxist economics — two ideologies that have left tens of millions dead in the 20th century alone. But don’t worry, New York. I’m sure this time socialism will totally work. Just like it always didn’t.

If you’re a business owner, a parent, a person who’s saved anything, or just someone who values sanity: Get out. I’m serious. If Mamdani becomes mayor, as seems likely, then New York City will become a case study in what happens when you marry ideological extremism with political power. And it won’t be pretty.

This is about more than one mayoral race. It’s about the future of Western liberalism. It’s about drawing a bright line between faith and fanaticism, between healthy pluralism and authoritarian dogma.

Call out radicalism

We must call out political Islam the same way we call out white nationalism or any other supremacist ideology. When someone chants “globalize the intifada,” that should send a chill down your spine — whether you’re Jewish, Christian, Muslim, atheist, or anything in between.

The left may try to shame you into silence with words like “Islamophobia,” but the record is worn out. The grooves are shallow. The American people see what’s happening. And we’re not buying it.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

How private stewardship could REVIVE America’s wild

Jonathan Newton / Contributor | Getty Images

The left’s idea of stewardship involves bulldozing bison and barring access. Lee’s vision puts conservation back in the hands of the people.

The media wants you to believe that Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) is trying to bulldoze Yellowstone and turn national parks into strip malls — that he’s calling for a reckless fire sale of America’s natural beauty to line developers’ pockets. That narrative is dishonest. It’s fearmongering, and, by the way, it’s wrong.

Here’s what’s really happening.

Private stewardship works. It’s local. It’s accountable. It’s incentivized.

The federal government currently owns 640 million acres of land — nearly 28% of all land in the United States. To put that into perspective, that’s more territory than France, Germany, Poland, and the United Kingdom combined.

Most of this land is west of the Mississippi River. That’s not a coincidence. In the American West, federal ownership isn’t just a bureaucratic technicality — it’s a stranglehold. States are suffocated. Locals are treated as tenants. Opportunities are choked off.

Meanwhile, people living east of the Mississippi — in places like Kentucky, Georgia, or Pennsylvania — might not even realize how little land their own states truly control. But the same policies that are plaguing the West could come for them next.

Lee isn’t proposing to auction off Yellowstone or pave over Yosemite. He’s talking about 3 million acres — that’s less than half of 1% of the federal estate. And this land isn’t your family’s favorite hiking trail. It’s remote, hard to access, and often mismanaged.

Failed management

Why was it mismanaged in the first place? Because the federal government is a terrible landlord.

Consider Yellowstone again. It’s home to the last remaining herd of genetically pure American bison — animals that haven’t been crossbred with cattle. Ranchers, myself included, would love the chance to help restore these majestic creatures on private land. But the federal government won’t allow it.

So what do they do when the herd gets too big?

They kill them. Bulldoze them into mass graves. That’s not conservation. That’s bureaucratic malpractice.

And don’t even get me started on bald eagles — majestic symbols of American freedom and a federally protected endangered species, now regularly slaughtered by wind turbines. I have pictures of piles of dead bald eagles. Where’s the outrage?

Biden’s federal land-grab

Some argue that states can’t afford to manage this land themselves. But if the states can’t afford it, how can Washington? We’re $35 trillion in debt. Entitlements are strained, infrastructure is crumbling, and the Bureau of Land Management, Forest Service, and National Park Service are billions of dollars behind in basic maintenance. Roads, firebreaks, and trails are falling apart.

The Biden administration quietly embraced something called the “30 by 30” initiative, a plan to lock up 30% of all U.S. land and water under federal “conservation” by 2030. The real goal is 50% by 2050.

That entails half of the country being taken away from you, controlled not by the people who live there but by technocrats in D.C.

You think that won’t affect your ability to hunt, fish, graze cattle, or cut timber? Think again. It won’t be conservatives who stop you from building a cabin, raising cattle, or teaching your grandkids how to shoot a rifle. It’ll be the same radical environmentalists who treat land as sacred — unless it’s your truck, your deer stand, or your back yard.

Land as collateral

Moreover, the U.S. Treasury is considering putting federally owned land on the national balance sheet, listing your parks, forests, and hunting grounds as collateral.

What happens if America defaults on its debt?

David McNew / Stringer | Getty Images

Do you think our creditors won’t come calling? Imagine explaining to your kids that the lake you used to fish in is now under foreign ownership, that the forest you hunted in belongs to China.

This is not hypothetical. This is the logical conclusion of treating land like a piggy bank.

The American way

There’s a better way — and it’s the American way.

Let the people who live near the land steward it. Let ranchers, farmers, sportsmen, and local conservationists do what they’ve done for generations.

Did you know that 75% of America’s wetlands are on private land? Or that the most successful wildlife recoveries — whitetail deer, ducks, wild turkeys — didn’t come from Washington but from partnerships between private landowners and groups like Ducks Unlimited?

Private stewardship works. It’s local. It’s accountable. It’s incentivized. When you break it, you fix it. When you profit from the land, you protect it.

This is not about selling out. It’s about buying in — to freedom, to responsibility, to the principle of constitutional self-governance.

So when you hear the pundits cry foul over 3 million acres of federal land, remember: We don’t need Washington to protect our land. We need Washington to get out of the way.

Because this isn’t just about land. It’s about liberty. And once liberty is lost, it doesn’t come back easily.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.