Rand Paul stands against Patriot Act: "We're doing it now. We're shutting it down"

June 01, 2015

Writer

So Congress finally did something right! Key provisions of the Patriot Act expired Sunday, including the bulk collection of phone metadata. The man who has made this happen and who is still fighting the fight, Sen. Rand Paul, joined Glenn on radio Monday.

Related: Check out Rand Paul's new book, Taking a Stand: Moving Beyond Partisan Politics to Unite America.

GLENN: Rand Paul is going to be joining us in just a few minutes. Today is a very busy day for him. He's fighting off John McCain and all the Republicans who are coming after him. A lot of people are really upset at him because it sounds like he is blaming us for terror. And that's what I've heard from several people. I happen to be a little more reflective on that. And I think that, you know, our policies have led to a lot of our problems today. We're not responsible for terror. Islam as it is understood -- the Islamists, I should say, are responsible for the terror. But we do play a role in our own demise here.

Last night, the Patriot Act was suspended. And at least provisions in the Patriot Act. Which I think is a very good thing. Now, whether they actually stop spying on us and what this new bill coming out of the House actually does, Rand Paul says it's actually perhaps a bit worse than the Patriot Act. We have yet to see. Rand Paul is with us now. Hello, Senator, how are you, sir?

RAND: Good. Good morning, Glenn, thanks for having me.

GLENN: Let's address first things first. What has been suspended on the Patriot Act?

RAND: There are three provisions. One of them is the provision that says that the government can collect records that are relevant to an investigation. The problem here is that the government has used that provision to collect all the phone records from all Americans. And the court has said that this is illegal because, how could they be relevant if you're not just getting some of them? If you're getting all of them, how could you say that every record in America is relevant to an investigation investigation? So the court sent them to legal. I don't trust this president to be looking at all the phone records of every American.

They haven't been very trustworthy with the IRS or with religious groups or Tea Party groups. I don't really want this president having all of our phone records. But the good news is that in this battle, the one thing that will come out of this week is that the government will no longer be collecting, in bulk, your phone records. Now, there is a question whether or not the replacement will actually work because I think it will still allow the phone companies to have mass collection of -- and sorting through all the American phone records. So I'm still concerned about it, but I think it will be a step forward.

GLENN: Okay. And I know you mean this as well. I'm concerned with any president having this capability. I don't want anybody having this capability. When it comes to a private business, the phone company, you know, storing all of the records, et cetera, et cetera, as long as they can only use it -- or, give it to the government with a specific warrant, do you have a problem with that?

RAND: No. And, in fact, that's the whole argument. I want to look at more records of terrorists. I just don't want to look at records of all Americans for whom no suspicion for example, the Boston bomber. If you had came to me a year before the bombing and said, well, and let's say I'm a judge. And you ask me, well, the Russians have tipped us off. And we have some evidence that he's going to fly -- he flew back to Chechnya. Would you let us tap his phone? I would say absolutely without a heartbeat. And they say, well, he called 100 people, and five of them live in Chechnya. Can we trace their phone call too? Absolutely.

All I'm asking for is not to collect everybody's records indiscriminately. I want more time spent -- in fact, I told them last night, I would take the billions we're spending collecting all American's records, and I would hire 1,000 new FBI agents to specifically go after the jihadists. The FBI said this week, they don't have enough manpower. Let's hire more, but let's quit indiscriminately looking at American's records.

STU: Creating jobs already. Look at that.

GLENN: So why are people like John McCain so dead-set against this? You know, he's doing exactly what they did to Ted Cruz, you know, with the government shutdown. Except you are responsible for this one. Where Cruz wasn't responsible for that.

RAND: It's an argument for term limits. You know, some people get there and they stay too long. People become out of touch with America. I tell people get outside the Beltway more. Go visit America. I've been traveling America. I've been out there in town halls. Fifty, 200 people, they're coming out in large numbers saying they don't want President Obama collecting their phone records. They don't trust him. And the people up here defending President Obama's collection, which has now been determined illegal by the courts, I don't know. I think if they went home, they might hear a different story.

GLENN: You've said this twice. And it concerns me. Because now you've used this -- and you've heard this from constituents. They don't want Obama doing it. Have we learned enough that we don't want the Bushes doing it or we don't want President Rand Paul doing it. Have we learned enough?

RAND: And that's sort of the problem. When you have Republicans in power, Republican Congresses have given more power to Republicans. When you have Democrats in power, Democrats give more power. And over the past 100 years, probably the number one problem we have in our country is, we used to have coequal branches. But now the presidency has become so large. The bureaucracy is so large that the presidency is probably 100 times more powerful than Congress now. And often the lowliest bureaucrat in the administration has more power than your congressman.

GLENN: So let's turn to something that I -- that has been said about you. In fact, where was it? It was on the Face the Nation or one of those crappy shows, where one of those guys was saying -- a fellow Republican.

PAT: It was Bobby Jindal.

GLENN: Bobby Jindal who I really respect and like. But he took you on and said you're blaming the Republicans for ISIS. Is that true?

RAND: I think it's quite the opposite. I think the only party responsible for terrorism are terrorists. ISIS are a bunch of thugs and terrorists. It's an aberration. It's a barbarity that's been just alarming. And I've been one who actually said we should declare war against ISIS. We have to do something about ISIS. But I've also been one that says, we have to look at our foreign policy and see if it works or not. I've said for two years now, maybe three years, that giving arms to the Islamic rebels in Syria might allow ISIS to grow stronger. And I said the great irony is, we'll be back fighting against our own weapons. And sure enough, most of the weapons that ISIS had came from us, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar. We were supportive of all those weapons flowing into there. We thought, well, these people may be al-Qaeda, but they hate HEP Assad. So we'll choose al-Qaeda over Assad. And that was a big mistake.

Even our ambassador at the time, they asked him in the Foreign Relations Committee, they said, will some of these people be fighting alongside al-Qaeda? And he said, it is inevitable that the weapons we give to people, that these people will fight alongside al-Qaeda, al-Nusra, and ultimately beside ISIS. But it turned out ISIS was stronger than everybody else. ISIS grabbed up all the money and the weapons. So the money is ours and the weapons are ours. It's foolish to not have a discussion whether that was a good idea or not.

GLENN: So here's the one complaint that -- and, by the way, I talked to a guy who is probably ten years older than I am. Really deeply conservative. Deeply religious. And I said to him. So who do you think you'll vote for? Without a doubt, quick as -- I just couldn't believe it. Because he's not the stereotypically Libertarian guy. And he said Rand Paul. And I said, really? How come? And he said, because he's standing and saying the things that I want to say and he's standing for the same principles that I have.

So I think that there is -- I think there's a surprise coming for a lot of people when it comes to you. Let me --

RAND: The interesting thing about the debate up here too is it's lopsided. It almost seems like a dog pile some days on me. When you go outside the Beltway, it's a lot different. These people misunderstand the American people. I think the vast majority of Republicans don't want -- and it may not be intellectual enough to say all presidents, but they particularly don't want this president collecting their phone records. And so the people up here championing, allowing President Obama to collect all of our phone records, I just think they're out of step. And if they got home, they would find out that the people want otherwise.

GLENN: What I want to say to you -- and you've kind of touched on this and I want you to go further on it. The one thing I'm not comfortable with it and it's only because we haven't discussed it. And I hear this about you and Libertarians. And they say, well, I don't know if he's the guy to really go for. Because what will he do in the Middle East? You just touched on it. You said you would declare war on ISIS. What does that mean to you?

RAND: Well, see, I would have done things completely different. Last summer when they became active and they marched and took Mosul in one clean sweep, I said that had I been president, I would have come before a joint session of Congress in August. I would have brought everybody back from recess. And I would have said, these are the reasons why ISIS is now a threat to our consulate in Irbile HEP, the same way Benghazi was threatened. This is the way our embassy in Baghdad is threatened. This is the way American interests are threatened. And this is the way that Americans have been killed by ISIS. And I'm asking you for permission to declare war on ISIS.

That's the way it was done originally. The Constitution said that Congress declares war. They're closer to the people. And it was supposed to be a big debate. We've now been at war for nine months, but had no debate and no vote. So I would go all in. I would also say that we should arm the best fighters and those truest to the cause, and that would be the Kurds. I wouldn't send it through the Shiite government in Baghdad. I would load up as many aircraft of weapons from Afghanistan where they're no longer being used, I'd put them on big transport planes and I would land them directly in Kurdistan. And I would tell the Kurds: You fight hard for your country. And when you end, it will be yours. It will be Kurdistan up there. And I would talk to the Turks. And I would say: Look, the Kurds are going to give up their pretensions to wanting any Turkish territory, but you need to fight too. You're our NATO ally. You need to come in and fight.

And I think ultimately if we could get our allies there on the ground, ISIS could be wiped out. But it won't just be wiped out by Americans. It will take Arab boots on the ground to get it done.

GLENN: So we're in this really weird situation where I don't think Americans want to fight war anymore. Because we don't even know what it's about anymore. And even the hawkish of the hawks. I mean, when September 11th came around, you know, I was put a boot up their ass and let's move on. But even me now, I am -- I am, you know, let's pull back. Let's not do all of this. We can't be these kinds of people. You said, you know, I would have done things differently. And that's what President Obama said for the first four years when he had power. And I understand that you're not the president. And you didn't have the power now. But when you get in, you know how bad it is. Can the president still move in a Libertarian way and reduce our presence and yet still have a very hard stick?

RAND: Yeah. And I think this was a lot of how Reagan operated. And a lot of this is misinterpreted about Reagan. Reagan believed in a strong national defense. So do I. I'm a Reagan conservative. Met him when I was 15 years old. Supported him from the time I was a teenager. Reagan believed in a strong national defense. Unparalleled. Undefeatable. But he also was wise about the use of it.

We had a couple little skirmishes. But for the most part, he didn't invade the Warsaw Pact. He negotiated with the Russians, but from a position of strength. And so nobody doubted that Reagan would use force if he had to. And so force is the mighty stick that backs up diplomacy. But it doesn't mean you don't talk with your enemies. It means you negotiate from a position of strength. And the thing is, for example, with the Iranians, I would still negotiate with the Iranians, but I would tell them, they have to give up terrorism. They have to give up their ballistic missile system, and they have to give up any pretension to a nuclear weapon. And if they're tweeting out crap saying that they won't adhere to the agreement and saying the agreement doesn't mean anything, then they're not serious. But I would still continue to negotiate, but I wouldn't accept an agreement that I didn't believe they would adhere to.

GLENN: Talking to Rand Paul running for president of the United States. The guy responsible for the Patriot Act being suspended today. Also, author of a new book, Taking a Stand: Moving Beyond Partisan Politics to Unite America.

Senator, we were talking before we came on the air, as much as I would like to believe they shut it down yesterday, they started shutting it down at 3:57 p.m. I think that's a bunch of bullcrap. Do you actually believe they've actually stopped collecting information today?

RAND: You have to be careful how they parse their words. They might have stopped one program, but they probably have ten others doing the same thing. They have an executive order called 123333. Under that executive order, we really don't know everything they're doing. But they're doing bulk collection under that. They may well be doing more bulk collection under that than they are under the phone collection program.

So they also told us and informed us that in the previous Patriot Act, there's a provision in there saying that they continue any investigation that was already ongoing. So my guess is that since the bulk so-called investigation was collecting everybody's records, they could simply say, well, we started doing that before so that's an ongoing investigation.

So are they stopping it? I don't know. I mean, that's the whole problem with trust here on this. The president's number one man over there, Clapper, lied to us and told us the program didn't even exist. Now we're supposed to accept that they're telling us that the world will end and the sky will fall if it ends. We're doing it now. We're shutting it down.

And I don't know. There's a certain lack of trust I have for this administration.

GLENN: I just want you to know. As we're speaking, Lindsey Graham is announcing his candidacy. So look out.

[laughter]

Best of luck to you, Senator. Thank you so much. Thank you for the hard stand. Rand Paul. Taking a Stand is the name of the book.

Critical theory destroys truth and justice

Editor's note: This article was originally published on TheBlaze.com.

Critical theory once stood out as the absurd progressive notion that it is. Now, its maxims are becoming an integral part of ordinary political discourse. The more you repeat a lie, the more you will believe it, and this is the very dangerous place in which we find ourselves today.

Take this critical theory maxim as an example: If we desire justice, we must sometimes champion what may appear superficially as injustice. It's a necessary evil, if you will, the necessity of “controlled injustice.”

By using truth through fabrication and controlled injustice for justice, we’ll save the republic. We’ll be acting in a noble way.

This definition of justice is defined by the “oppressed,” not the “oppressor.” It is the greatest happiness for the greatest number. To achieve this justice, however, we need to endorse acts on occasion that, while seemingly unjust, serve a higher purpose. It will ensure the stability and the unity of our republic, and this may manifest in ways that seem contradictory to our values. But these are the necessary shadows to cast light on “true justice.”

And isn’t that what we are all after, anyway?

Here’s another critical theory maxim: Sometimes we find the truth through fabrication. Our pursuit of truth sometimes requires a strategic use of falsehoods. The truth is a construct that has been shaped and tailored to promote the well-being of the collective.

We sometimes need to accept and propagate lies designed by "the system” — not the old system, but the system that we’re now using to replace the old to get more justice through injustice and more truth through fabrication.

We’re engaging in a higher form of honesty. When we fabricate, it’s for the right reason. We are reaching up to the heavens fighting for a higher sort of honesty. To fortify the truth, we occasionally must weave a tapestry of lies. Each thread, essential for the greater picture, will ultimately define our understanding and ensure our unity under this infallible wisdom.

The election is coming up. Does this maxim sound familiar? Many think it is imperative that we secure our republic through election control to maintain our republic. Sometimes, we might need to take actions that by traditional standards might be questionable.

The act of securing elections requires cheating. It's not mere deception. It is a noble act of safeguarding our way of life. We're on the verge of losing this democracy, and without deception, we will lose it.

To ensure it doesn't fall into the hands of those we know will destroy it, we may have to make a few fabrications. We're fabricating stories to be able to control or secure the republic through our elections. By using truth through fabrication and controlled injustice for justice, we'll save the republic. Therefore, we'll be acting in a noble way. Stealing an election from those who wish to harm our society is truly an act of valor and an essential measure to protect our values and ensure the continuation of our just society.

If we desire justice, we must sometimes champion what may appear superficially as injustice.

I know it's a paradox of honor through dishonor. But in this context, by embracing the dishonor, we achieve the highest form of honor, ensuring the stability and the continuation of our great republic.

Let this be heard, far and wide, as a great call to patriotic action. As we advance, let each of us, citizens of this great and honorable republic, consider these principles. Not as abstract or paradoxical but as practical guides to daily life. Embrace the necessity of controlled injustice, the utility of lies, the duty to secure our electoral process, and the honor and apparent dishonor. These are not merely strategies for survival. They are prerequisites for our prosperity.

We all have to remember that justice is what our leaders define, that truth is what our party tells us. Our republic stands strong on the values of injustice for justice, honor through dishonor, and the fabrication of truths. To deviate from this path is to jeopardize the very fabric of our society. Strength through unity; unity through strength.

We've heard this nonsense for so long. But now, this nonsense is becoming an instituted reality, and we are entering perilous times. Don't be fooled by the narratives you will hear during the march to November. Never let someone convince you that the ends justify the means, that a little bit of injustice is needed to achieve a broader, collective vision of justice, that truth sometimes requires fabricated lies and narratives. If we do, justice will cease to be justice, truth will cease to be truth, and our republic will be lost.

Top 5 MOST EVIL taxes the government extorts from you

David McNew / Staff | Getty Images

"In this world nothing is certain but death and taxes." -Ben Franklin

The injustice of taxation has been a core issue for Americans since the very beginning of our country, and it's a problem we have yet to resolve. This belief was recently reignited in many Americans earlier this month on tax day when the numbers were crunched and it was discovered that the government was somehow owed even more hard-earned money. As Glenn recently discussed on his show, it's getting to be impossible for most Americans to afford to live comfortably, inflation is rising, and our politicians keep getting richer.

The taxpayer's burden is heavier than ever.

The government is not above some real low blows either. While taxes are a necessary evil, some taxes stretch the definition of "necessary" and emphasize the "evil." Here are the top five most despicable taxes that are designed to line the IRS coffers at your expense:

Income Tax

Joe Raedle / Staff | Getty Images

"It would be a hard government that should tax its people one-tenth part of their income." -Ben Franklin

On February 24th, 2024 we hit a very unfortunate milestone, the 101st anniversary of the 16th Amendment, which authorized federal income tax. Where does the government get the right to steal directly out of your paycheck?

Death Taxes

Dan Mullan / Staff | Getty Images

"Now my advice for those who die, Declare the pennies on your eyes" -George Harrison

Not even in death can you escape the cold pursuit of the tax collector. It's not good enough that you have to pay taxes on everything you buy and every penny you make your entire life. Now the feds want a nice slice, based on the entire value of your estate, that can be as much as 40 percent. Then the state government gets to stick their slimy fingers all over whatever remains before your family is left with the crumbs. It's practically grave-robbery.

Payroll

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

"The power to tax is the power to destroy." -John Marshall

What's that? The nice chunk of your paycheck the government nabs before you can even get it to the bank wasn't enough? What if the government taxed your employer just for paying you? In essence, you make less than what your agreed pay rate is and it costs your employer more! Absolutely abominable.

Social Security

VALERIE MACON / Contributor | Getty Images

"We don't have a trillion-dollar debt because we haven't taxed enough; we have a trillion-dollar debt because we spend too much." -Ronald Reagan

Everyone knows the collapse of Social Security is imminent. It has limped along for years, only sustained by a torrent of tax dollars and the desperate actions of politicians. For decades, people have unwillingly forked over money into the system they will never see again.

FICA

Kevin Dietsch / Staff | Getty Images

"What at first was plunder assumed the softer name of revenue." -Thomas Paine

FICA is the payroll equivalent of Social Security. Your employer has to match however much you pay. It means it costs your employer even more to pay you—again, you'll NEVER see that money. At this point, are you even working for yourself, or are you just here to generate money for the government to frivolously throw away?

5 DISTURBING ways World War III will be different from previous wars

Oleg Nikishin / Stringer | Getty Images

Has World War III begun?

Over the weekend, Iran launched an unprecedented attack against Israel involving over 300 missiles and drones. This marked the first direct attack on Israel originating from Iranian territory. Fortunately, according to an Israel Defense Forces spokesperson Rear Admiral Daniel Hagari, 99 percent of missiles and drones were successfully neutralized by Israeli defense systems. Iran claimed that the operation against Israel had concluded and that no further offensive was planned, although the possibility of another attack is still present.

This has left many people, including Glenn, wondering the same thing: did we just witness the start of World War III?

Glenn recently had a World War II Air Force Veteran as a guest on his TV special, who told stories of the horrors he and his brothers-in-arms faced in the skies over war-torn Europe. This was a timely reminder of the terrors of war and a warning that our future, if it leads to another world war, is a dark one.

But, if Glenn's coverage of the Iranian attack revealed one thing, it's that World War III will look nothing like the world wars of the twentieth century. Long gone are the days of John "Lucky" Luckadoo and his "Bloody Hundredth" bravely flying their B-17s into battle. Over the weekend, we saw hundreds of autonomous drones and missiles clashing with extreme speed and precision over several different fronts (including space) simultaneously. This ain't your grandfather's war.

From EMP strikes to cyber attacks, here are FIVE ways the face of war has changed:

EMP attacks

New York Daily News Archive / Contributor | Getty Images

The entire modern world, on every level, is completely dependent on electricity. From your home refrigerator to international trade, the world would come to a grinding halt without power. And as Glenn has pointed out, it wouldn't even be that hard to pull off. All it would take is 3 strategically placed, high-altitude nuclear detonations and the entire continental U.S. would be without power for months if not years. This would cause mass panic across the country, which would be devastating enough on its own, but the chaos could be a perfect opportunity for a U.S. land invasion.

Nuclear strikes

Galerie Bilderwelt / Contributor | Getty Images

Nuclear war is nothing new. Many of us grew up during the Cold War, built fallout shelters, and learned to duck and cover. But times have changed. The Berlin Wall fell and so did the preparedness of the average American to weather a nuclear attack. As technology has advanced, more of our adversaries than ever have U.S. cities within their crosshairs, and as Glenn has pointed out, these adversaries are not exactly shy about that fact. Unfortunately, the possibility of an atomic apocalypse is as real as ever.

Immigration warfare

Nick Ut / Contributor | Getty Images

The strategy of strangling an opposing nation's economy to gain the upper hand is a wartime tactic as old as time. That's why the Border Crisis is so alarming. What better way to damage an opponent's economy than by overburdening it with millions of undocumented immigrants? As Glenn has covered, these immigrants are not making the trek unaided. There is a wide selection of organizations that facilitate this growing disaster. These organizations are receiving backing from around the globe, such as the WEF, the UN, and U.S. Democrats! Americans are already feeling the effects of the border crisis. Imagine how this tactic could be exploited in war.

Cyber shutdowns

Bill Hinton / Contributor | Getty Images

Cyber attacks will be a major tactic in future wars. We've already experienced relatively minor cyber strikes from Russia, China, and North Korea, and it is a very real possibility that one of our adversaries inflicts a larger attack with devastating consequences on the United States. In fact, the WEF has already predicted a "catastrophic" cyber attack is imminent, and Glenn suggests that it is time to start preparing ourselves. A cyber attack could be every bit as devastating as an EMP, and in a world run by computers, nothing is safe.

Biological assault

WPA Pool / Pool | Getty Images

Don't trust the "experts." That was the takeaway many of us had from the pandemic, but something less talked about is the revelation that China has manufactured viruses that are capable of spreading across the globe. We now know that the lab leak hypothesis is true and that the Wuhan lab manufactured the virus that infected the entire world. That was only ONE virus from ONE lab. Imagine what else the enemies of America might be cooking up.

The government is WAGING WAR against these 3 basic needs

NICHOLAS KAMM / Contributor | Getty Images

The government has launched a full-on assault against our basic needs, and people are starting to take notice.

As long-time followers of Glenn are probably aware, our right to food, water, and power is under siege. The government no longer cares about our general welfare. Instead, our money lines the pockets of our politicians, funds overseas wars, or goes towards some woke-ESG-climate-Great Reset bullcrap. And when they do care, it's not in a way that benefits the American people.

From cracking down on meat production to blocking affordable power, this is how the government is attacking your basic needs:

Food

Fiona Goodall / Stringer | Getty Images

Glenn had Rep. Thomas Massie on his show where he sounded the alarm about the attack on our food. The government has been waging war against our food since the thirties when Congress passed the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938. They started by setting strict limits on how many crops a farmer could grow in a season and punishing anyone who grew more—even if it was intended for personal use, not for sale on the market. This sort of autocratic behavior has continued into the modern day and has only gotten more draconian. Today, not only are you forced to buy meat that a USDA-approved facility has processed, but the elites want meat in general off the menu. Cow farts are too dangerous to the environment, so the WEF wants you to eat climate-friendly alternatives—like bugs.

Water

ALESSANDRO RAMPAZZO / Contributor | Getty Images

As Glenn discussed during a recent Glenn TV special, the government has been encroaching on our water for years. It all started when Congress passed the Clean Water Act in 1972, which gave the government the ability to regulate large bodies of water. As the name suggests, the act was primarily intended to keep large waterways clear of pollution, but over time it has allowed the feds to assume more and more control over the country's water supply. Most recently, the Biden administration attempted to expand the reach of the Clean Water Act to include even more water and was only stopped by the Supreme Court.

Electricity