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

November 06, 2012

Writer

This morning on radio, Glenn spoke with Senator Rand Paul from Kentucky. How does he think libertarians will influence the race? And does he think Republicans are being underestimated in the polls? Check out the full interview from radio in the clip above.

Full transcript of the interview is below:

GLENN: We want to talk to Senator Rand Paul from Kentucky. I've heard a lot of people, pollsters, generally say that there are a lot of people that are sitting this one out that are libertarian and they're saying I'm not going to do it because neither of these guys are my guy. I understand that. Neither of these guys were are my guy, either, but I found enough in somebody that I can support because we are at a critical juncture with our country. And you've got to make a choice. You can't just say let it spiral out of control. That's ‑‑ that is the act of a mad man.

We have Senator Rand Paul on to talk a little bit about this and specifically to Missouri because if I understand right, there's a guy running in Missouri who's like been in and out of jail and is running as a libertarian and really not a good choice. Hello, Rand, how are you, sir?

RAND PAUL: The way I look at it is if you want the perfect candidate, the candidate that agrees with you 100% of the time, the only one is if you run yourself. So if you're not actually running, you have to make a little bit of compromise with who you're going to support.

GLENN: I...

RAND PAUL: When I look at, you know, the difference between Romney and Obama, it's a stark difference, and neither one of them are libertarian but I would say on economic freedom and pro business attitude, smaller government, it's night and day that Romney would really support smaller government, particularly in the economic freedoms. So I find it not really that difficult of a choice.

But you're right, and I've had promise Democrats come up to me and say that they guarantee a libertarian runs in every race, every year because they see them as a spoiler. Right now the Democrats have actually plowed $500,000 into a libertarian running for Senate in Montana. It's also happening in Missouri. So the Democrats are actually funding libertarian candidates because they see it as a way to get two or three points in a close election.

GLENN: I will tell you that part of me says good, we're using their money to further libertarian causes, but they would never ‑‑ if there was close ‑‑ if it was close and that libertarian was ever going to have power, they wouldn't like it that much. So they wouldn't fund that one.

RAND PAUL: The problem is we've been ‑‑ for 40 years the libertarians have been trying to form a party and try to get more than 1 or 2% of the vote, but it hasn't happened. Some of it's because there are legal impediments, some of it's because they don't get in the debates. But some of it is that I don't think we'll get a third party unless there were some sort of chaotic situation. You know, we got the Republican Party when slavery was a big issue. We don't have an issue that really rises to that level probably. So ‑‑

GLENN: May I give you the scenario and see what ‑‑ how likely you think this is: I think the one that will create the Libertarian Party or a new party and destroy the Republican Party is if they get control ‑‑ if the Republicans get control of the House and the Senate and the White House and then they, in two years, they don't repeal ObamaCare, they don't roll things back, they aren't serious about cutting. They go into the Karl Rove style Republican, I really, truly believe ‑‑ I know I will never pull the lever of a Republican again if they betray us this time.

RAND PAUL: Well, and I think a lot of people remember the last time we controlled all three branches and they were disappointed by that. And you do lose a certain percentage of people. They either quit voting or they go and vote libertarian just to protest and so you do have to show that we honestly will do the right thing. I also think time is running short that we can't continue to be big government Republicans in adding new programs because really the debt threatens us all.

GLENN: Tell me about the guy who's running in Missouri. Do you know anything about him?

RAND PAUL: I don't know much about him but, you know, I've spent some money trying to get people know that Todd Akin is a small government guy, he's been one of the most conservative, most frugal. And also really to tell you the truth when we have Republicans who lack spine, who are afraid to cut spending, I think if he's elected in the Senate, he will cut spending.

GLENN: That is really good news. How do you feel today going into things?

RAND PAUL: I think the polls still underestimate Republican strength. I think the polls are still taking into account 2008 too much and ignoring 2010. 2010 was an enormous election. The TEA Party movement I think is the biggest movement in the last 40 years in American politics, and I think it's still heading in that direction. I don't think we went to 2010 and now we're headed back to 2008. I just can't believe that ‑‑ I think the polls are going to underestimate. So part of me sees like Dick Morris' predictions or George Will's prediction with Romney getting 300 votes ‑‑ 300 electoral votes or more as being possible. Because I think really the momentum and the enthusiasm is still with us.

GLENN: I ‑‑ you know what? For exactly the same reason I've been saying 321. That Romney's going to walk away with 321. Because I think this is 2010. Aren't you a 2010 baby?

RAND PAUL: Yeah, and I still think so. I still hear the same thing when I talk to people. People are worried. People are concerned that our government's not paying attention to the Constitution. But they're also harkening to the dangers of the debt. And I think people realize it. And everywhere I go, I hear the same sort of rhetoric and concern I heard in 2010.

GLENN: So ‑‑

RAND PAUL: I don't think it's changed.

GLENN: When you were ‑‑

RAND PAUL: I don't think we're going back to 2008.

GLENN: When you were running, wasn't the press saying the same thing about 2010? They were saying ‑‑ they were dismissing it, the TEA Party's extremist, it's not going to play a role, it's really kind of over, yada, yada. They were dismissing all of these things, were they not?

RAND PAUL: It's the same rhetoric. And I would say over and over again what is extreme is a trillion dollar deficit each year. What's extreme is $16 trillion in debt. You know, believing in a balanced budget, for goodness sakes, is not an extreme position.

GLENN: Right. The ‑‑ I'm concerned, let's just project, let's ‑‑ Glenn Beck is declaring now Mitt Romney the winner. So let's project Mitt Romney the winner and let's fast‑forward 24 hours from now. I believe that you will see John Boehner and the Karl Rove crew all kind of getting together and saying the TEA Party is extremist, the social conservatives, are religious conservatives, they had nothing to do with this; this is a Republican thing and if you want to win, you're going to have to reach across the aisle to those reasonable Democrats and you're going to have the John McCain, Lindsey Graham, John Boehner kind of takeover. And if we don't stand starting tomorrow and put them on notice, we are not going anywhere. You're going to do these things. They control everybody that we've brought in. Agree or disagree?

RAND PAUL: And letting them know and putting them on notice that if they need one vote to pass the budget, they are going to need to work to get my vote because I'm not voting for a Republican budget that doesn't balance in a reasonable time. To me a reasonable time is five, maybe at the longest eight years. But I'm not voting for any Republican budget that says, oh, in three decades we may value. Because who knows who will even be alive then, who will be elected. We have no control over congresses two decades from now. So unless we have a plan that looks like it would be implemented really within one or two Romney terms, I'm not voting for it. And it's going to have to eliminate some of government. It's not going to just slow the growth of government. So they're going to have to work to get my vote. It's typically been a "let's work to get the liberal Republicans' votes." I'm going to make them work to get the conservative Republican votes.

GLENN: Good.

RAND PAUL: And we're going to get a nucleus of House members and Senate members who say it's going to have to be a budget that balances or we're not voting for it, even if it's a Republican budget.

GLENN: Rand, I have to tell you you'll have the support of this program and our network and also I think majority, vast majority of our listeners because people are sick and tired of hearing something that's going to happen in ten years. It's not going to happen in ten years, and I don't want a five‑year budget where it's all loaded in the fifth year. If you're going to do it, it's balanced in five years, good. We take the pain every single year. Not load it in the fifth year because who those who's going to be in office in the fifth year.

RAND PAUL: And I think it's what people fail to realize about the TEA Party movement. I've been saying over and over again it's equal parts chastisement to both parties. We tend to vote more Republican than the TEA Party does but it's not that they're happy with all Republicans. They want Republicans to balance the budget. They don't want Republicans just because their name is Republican. They want small, limited constitutional government with these budgets. And they will ‑‑ I think they will hold Republicans accountable as well.

GLENN: Oh, I know they will. I know they will. Rand, thank you very much. I appreciate your time and appreciate all the hard work you're doing in Washington. I think assuming Romney wins tomorrow, the hard work has just begun. If you would assume that Obama wins tomorrow, may I recommend moving to Texas.

RAND PAUL: Thanks a lot, Glenn.

GLENN: All right. Bye‑bye.

RAND PAUL: See ya.

'Rage against the dying of the light': Charlie Kirk lived that mandate

PHILL MAGAKOE / Contributor | Getty Images

Kirk’s tragic death challenges us to rise above fear and anger, to rebuild bridges where others build walls, and to fight for the America he believed in.

I’ve only felt this weight once before. It was 2001, just as my radio show was about to begin. The World Trade Center fell, and I was called to speak immediately. I spent the day and night by my bedside, praying for words that could meet the moment.

Yesterday, I found myself in the same position. September 11, 2025. The assassination of Charlie Kirk. A friend. A warrior for truth.

Out of this tragedy, the tyrant dies, but the martyr’s influence begins.

Moments like this make words feel inadequate. Yet sometimes, words from another time speak directly to our own. In 1947, Dylan Thomas, watching his father slip toward death, penned lines that now resonate far beyond his own grief:

Do not go gentle into that good night. / Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Thomas was pleading for his father to resist the impending darkness of death. But those words have become a mandate for all of us: Do not surrender. Do not bow to shadows. Even when the battle feels unwinnable.

Charlie Kirk lived that mandate. He knew the cost of speaking unpopular truths. He knew the fury of those who sought to silence him. And yet he pressed on. In his life, he embodied a defiance rooted not in anger, but in principle.

Picking up his torch

Washington, Jefferson, Adams — our history was started by men who raged against an empire, knowing the gallows might await. Lincoln raged against slavery. Martin Luther King Jr. raged against segregation. Every generation faces a call to resist surrender.

It is our turn. Charlie’s violent death feels like a knockout punch. Yet if his life meant anything, it means this: Silence in the face of darkness is not an option.

He did not go gently. He spoke. He challenged. He stood. And now, the mantle falls to us. To me. To you. To every American.

We cannot drift into the shadows. We cannot sit quietly while freedom fades. This is our moment to rage — not with hatred, not with vengeance, but with courage. Rage against lies, against apathy, against the despair that tells us to do nothing. Because there is always something you can do.

Even small acts — defiance, faith, kindness — are light in the darkness. Reaching out to those who mourn. Speaking truth in a world drowning in deceit. These are the flames that hold back the night. Charlie carried that torch. He laid it down yesterday. It is ours to pick up.

The light may dim, but it always does before dawn. Commit today: I will not sleep as freedom fades. I will not retreat as darkness encroaches. I will not be silent as evil forces claim dominion. I have no king but Christ. And I know whom I serve, as did Charlie.

Two turning points, decades apart

On Wednesday, the world changed again. Two tragedies, separated by decades, bound by the same question: Who are we? Is this worth saving? What kind of people will we choose to be?

Imagine a world where more of us choose to be peacemakers. Not passive, not silent, but builders of bridges where others erect walls. Respect and listening transform even the bitterest of foes. Charlie Kirk embodied this principle.

He did not strike the weak; he challenged the powerful. He reached across divides of politics, culture, and faith. He changed hearts. He sparked healing. And healing is what our nation needs.

At the center of all this is one truth: Every person is a child of God, deserving of dignity. Change will not happen in Washington or on social media. It begins at home, where loneliness and isolation threaten our souls. Family is the antidote. Imperfect, yes — but still the strongest source of stability and meaning.

Mark Wilson / Staff | Getty Images

Forgiveness, fidelity, faithfulness, and honor are not dusty words. They are the foundation of civilization. Strong families produce strong citizens. And today, Charlie’s family mourns. They must become our family too. We must stand as guardians of his legacy, shining examples of the courage he lived by.

A time for courage

I knew Charlie. I know how he would want us to respond: Multiply his courage. Out of this tragedy, the tyrant dies, but the martyr’s influence begins. Out of darkness, great and glorious things will sprout — but we must be worthy of them.

Charlie Kirk lived defiantly. He stood in truth. He changed the world. And now, his torch is in our hands. Rage, not in violence, but in unwavering pursuit of truth and goodness. Rage against the dying of the light.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Glenn Beck resurrects the 9-12 Project to support Charlie Kirk's family

Glenn Beck is once again calling on his loyal listeners and viewers to come together and channel the same unity and purpose that defined the historic 9-12 Project. That movement, born in the wake of national challenges, brought millions together to revive core values of faith, hope, and charity.

Glenn created the original 9-12 Project in early 2009 to bring Americans back to where they were in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. In those moments, we weren't Democrats and Republicans, conservative or liberal, Red States or Blue States, we were united as one, as America. The original 9-12 Project aimed to root America back in the founding principles of this country that united us during those darkest of days.

This new initiative draws directly from that legacy, focusing on supporting the family of Charlie Kirk in these dark days following his tragic murder.

The revival of the 9-12 Project aims to secure the long-term well-being of Charlie Kirk's wife and children. All donations will go straight to meeting their immediate and future needs. If the family deems the funds surplus to their requirements, Charlie's wife has the option to redirect them toward the vital work of Turning Point USA.

This campaign is more than just financial support—it's a profound gesture of appreciation for Kirk's tireless dedication to the cause of liberty. It embodies the unbreakable bond of our community, proving that when we stand united, we can make a real difference.
Glenn Beck invites you to join this effort. Show your solidarity by donating today and honoring Charlie Kirk and his family in this meaningful way.

You can learn more about the 9-12 Project and donate HERE

The critical difference: Rights from the Creator, not the state

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

When politicians claim that rights flow from the state, they pave the way for tyranny.

Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) recently delivered a lecture that should alarm every American. During a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing, he argued that believing rights come from a Creator rather than government is the same belief held by Iran’s theocratic regime.

Kaine claimed that the principles underpinning Iran’s dictatorship — the same regime that persecutes Sunnis, Jews, Christians, and other minorities — are also the principles enshrined in our Declaration of Independence.

In America, rights belong to the individual. In Iran, rights serve the state.

That claim exposes either a profound misunderstanding or a reckless indifference to America’s founding. Rights do not come from government. They never did. They come from the Creator, as the Declaration of Independence proclaims without qualification. Jefferson didn’t hedge. Rights are unalienable — built into every human being.

This foundation stands worlds apart from Iran. Its leaders invoke God but grant rights only through clerical interpretation. Freedom of speech, property, religion, and even life itself depend on obedience to the ruling clerics. Step outside their dictates, and those so-called rights vanish.

This is not a trivial difference. It is the essence of liberty versus tyranny. In America, rights belong to the individual. The government’s role is to secure them, not define them. In Iran, rights serve the state. They empower rulers, not the people.

From Muhammad to Marx

The same confusion applies to Marxist regimes. The Soviet Union’s constitutions promised citizens rights — work, health care, education, freedom of speech — but always with fine print. If you spoke out against the party, those rights evaporated. If you practiced religion openly, you were charged with treason. Property and voting were allowed as long as they were filtered and controlled by the state — and could be revoked at any moment. Rights were conditional, granted through obedience.

Kaine seems to be advocating a similar approach — whether consciously or not. By claiming that natural rights are somehow comparable to sharia law, he ignores the critical distinction between inherent rights and conditional privileges. He dismisses the very principle that made America a beacon of freedom.

Jefferson and the founders understood this clearly. “We are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights,” they wrote. No government, no cleric, no king can revoke them. They exist by virtue of humanity itself. The government exists to protect them, not ration them.

This is not a theological quibble. It is the entire basis of our government. Confuse the source of rights, and tyranny hides behind piety or ideology. The people are disempowered. Clerics, bureaucrats, or politicians become arbiters of what rights citizens may enjoy.

John Greim / Contributor | Getty Images

Gifts from God, not the state

Kaine’s statement reflects either a profound ignorance of this principle or an ideological bias that favors state power over individual liberty. Either way, Americans must recognize the danger. Understanding the origin of rights is not academic — it is the difference between freedom and submission, between the American experiment and theocratic or totalitarian rule.

Rights are not gifts from the state. They are gifts from God, secured by reason, protected by law, and defended by the people. Every American must understand this. Because when rights come from government instead of the Creator, freedom disappears.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

POLL: Is Gen Z’s anger over housing driving them toward socialism?

NurPhoto / Contributor | Getty Images

A recent poll conducted by Justin Haskins, a long-time friend of the show, has uncovered alarming trends among young Americans aged 18-39, revealing a generation grappling with deep frustrations over economic hardships, housing affordability, and a perceived rigged system that favors the wealthy, corporations, and older generations. While nearly half of these likely voters approve of President Trump, seeing him as an anti-establishment figure, over 70% support nationalizing major industries, such as healthcare, energy, and big tech, to promote "equity." Shockingly, 53% want a democratic socialist to win the 2028 presidential election, including a third of Trump voters and conservatives in this age group. Many cite skyrocketing housing costs, unfair taxation on the middle class, and a sense of being "stuck" or in crisis as driving forces, with 62% believing the economy is tilted against them and 55% backing laws to confiscate "excess wealth" like second homes or luxury items to help first-time buyers.

This blend of Trump support and socialist leanings suggests a volatile mix: admiration for disruptors who challenge the status quo, coupled with a desire for radical redistribution to address personal struggles. Yet, it raises profound questions about the roots of this discontent—Is it a failure of education on history's lessons about socialism's failures? Media indoctrination? Or genuine systemic barriers? And what does it portend for the nation’s trajectory—greater division, a shift toward authoritarian policies, or an opportunity for renewal through timeless values like hard work and individual responsibility?

Glenn wants to know what YOU think: Where do Gen Z's socialist sympathies come from? What does it mean for the future of America? Make your voice heard in the poll below:

Do you believe the Gen Z support for socialism comes from perceived economic frustrations like unaffordable housing and a rigged system favoring the wealthy and corporations?

Do you believe the Gen Z support for socialism, including many Trump supporters, is due to a lack of education about the historical failures of socialist systems?

Do you think that these poll results indicate a growing generational divide that could lead to more political instability and authoritarian tendencies in America's future?

Do you think that this poll implies that America's long-term stability relies on older generations teaching Gen Z and younger to prioritize self-reliance, free-market ideals, and personal accountability?

Glenn's Show Prep