Blog
LatestArticlesVideos
Radio
LivePodcastSerialsStations
TV
Podcast
Fine Art
Real Estate
More
AboutCharityBooksSponsorsShopContact
SEARCH
Live Radio

©2024 MERCURY RADIO ARTS.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

TERMS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY

Live

Glenn's Show Prep

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

January 25, 2013
Wilson

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.

Washington Post EXPOSED: How Watergate editors almost published a fake Pulitzer Prize-winning story

Episode 6 of Glenn’s new history podcast series The Beck Story releases this Saturday.

This latest installment explores the history of Left-wing bias in mainstream media. Like every episode of this series, episode 6 is jam-packed with historical detail, but you can’t squeeze in every story, so some inevitably get cut from the final version. Part of this episode involves the late Ben Bradlee, who was the legendary editor of the Washington Post. Bradlee is legendary mostly because of the Watergate investigation that was conducted on his watch by two young reporters named Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein. Bradlee, Woodward, and Bernstein became celebrities after the release of the book and movie based on their investigation called All the President’s Men.

But there is another true story about the Washington Post that you probably won’t see any time soon at a theater near you.

In 1980, Washington Post editor Ben Bradlee wanted to expand the Post’s readership in the black community. The paper made an effort to hire more minority journalists, like Janet Cooke, a black female reporter from Ohio. Cooke was an aggressive reporter and a good writer. She was a fast-rising star on a staff already full of stars. The Post had a very competitive environment and Cooke desperately wanted to win a Pulitzer Prize.

Readers were hooked. And outraged.

When Cooke was asked to work on a story about the D.C. area’s growing heroin problem, she saw her chance to win that Pulitzer. As she interviewed people in black neighborhoods that were hardest hit by the heroin epidemic, she was appalled to learn that even some children were heroin addicts. When she learned about an eight-year-old heroin addict named Jimmy, she knew she had her hook. His heartbreaking story would surely be her ticket to a Pulitzer.

Cooke wrote her feature story, titling it, “Jimmy’s World.” It blew away her editors at the Post, including Bob Woodward, who by then was Assistant Managing Editor. “Jimmy’s World” would be a front-page story:

'Jimmy is 8 years old and a third-generation heroin addict,' Cooke’s story began, 'a precocious little boy with sandy hair, velvety brown eyes and needle marks freckling the baby-smooth skin of his thin brown arms. He nestles in a large, beige reclining chair in the living room of his comfortably furnished home in Southeast Washington. There is an almost cherubic expression on his small, round face as he talks about life – clothes, money, the Baltimore Orioles and heroin. He has been an addict since the age of 5.'

Readers were hooked. And outraged. The mayor’s office instructed the police to immediately search for Jimmy and get him medical treatment. But no one was able to locate Jimmy. Cooke wasn’t surprised. She told her editors at the Post that she had only been able to interview Jimmy and his mother by promising them anonymity. She also revealed that the mother’s boyfriend had threatened Cooke’s life if the police discovered Jimmy’s whereabouts.

A few months later, Cooke’s hard work paid off and her dream came true – her story was awarded the Pulitzer Prize for feature writing. Cooke had to submit some autobiographical information to the Prize committee, but there was a slight snag. The committee contacted the Post when they couldn’t verify that Cooke had graduated magna cum laude from Vassar College. Turns out she only attended Vassar her freshman year. She actually graduated from the University of Toledo with a B.A. degree, not with a master’s degree as she told the Pulitzer committee.

Cooke’s editors summoned her for an explanation. Unfortunately for Cooke and the Washington Post, her resume flubs were the least of her lies. After hours of grilling, Cooke finally confessed that “Jimmy’s World” was entirely made up. Jimmy did not exist.

The Pulitzer committee withdrew its prize and Cooke resigned in shame. The Washington Post, the paper that uncovered Watergate – the biggest political scandal in American history – failed to even vet Cooke’s resume. Then it published a front-page, Pulitzer Prize-winning feature story that was 100 percent made up.

Remarkably, neither Ben Bradlee nor Bob Woodward resigned over the incident. It was a different time, but also, the halo of All the President’s Men probably saved them.

Don’t miss the first five episodes of The Beck Story, which are available now. And look for Episode 6 this Saturday, wherever you get your podcasts.


UPDATED: 5 Democrats who have endorsed Kamala (and one who hasn't)

Zach Gibson / Stringer, Brandon Bell / Staff | Getty Images

With Biden removed from the 2024 election and only a month to find a replacement before the DNC, Democrats continue to fall in line and back Vice President Kamala Harris to headline the party's ticket. Her proximity and familiarity with the Biden campaign along with an endorsement from Biden sets Harris up to step into Biden's shoes and preserve the momentum from his campaign.

Glenn doesn't think Kamala Harris is likely to survive as the assumed Democratic nominee, and once the DNC starts, anything could happen. Plenty of powerful and important Democrats have rallied around Harris over the last few days, but there have been some crucial exemptions. Here are five democrats that have thrown their name behind Harris, and two SHOCKING names that didn't...

Sen. Dick Durbin: ENDORSED

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

High-ranking Senate Democrat Dick Durbin officially put in his support for Harris in a statement that came out the day after Biden stepped down: “I’m proud to endorse my former Senate colleague and good friend, Vice President Kamala Harris . . . our nation needs to continue moving forward with unity and not MAGA chaos. Vice President Harris was a critical partner in building the Biden record over the past four years . . . Count me in with Kamala Harris for President.”

Michigan Gov. Whitmer: ENDORSED

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

The Monday after Biden stepped down from the presidential VP hopeful, Gretchen Whitmer released the following statement on X: “Today, I am fired up to endorse Kamala Harris for president of the United States [...] In Vice President Harris, Michigan voters have a presidential candidate they can count on to focus on lowering their costs, restoring their freedoms, bringing jobs and supply chains back home from overseas, and building an economy that works for working people.”

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: ENDORSED

Drew Angerer / Staff | Getty Images

Mere hours after Joe Biden made his announcement, AOC hopped on X and made the following post showing her support: "Kamala Harris will be the next President of the United States. I pledge my full support to ensure her victory in November. Now more than ever, it is crucial that our party and country swiftly unite to defeat Donald Trump and the threat to American democracy. Let’s get to work."

Rep. Nancy Pelosi: ENDORSED

Anna Moneymaker / Staff | Getty Images

Former Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who is arguably one of the most influential democrats, backed Harris's campaign with the following statement given the day after Biden's decision: “I have full confidence she will lead us to victory in November . . . My enthusiastic support for Kamala Harris for President is official, personal, and political.”

Sen. Elizabeth Warren: ENDORSED

Drew Angerer / Stringer | Getty Images

Massasschesets Senator Elizabeth Warren was quick to endorse Kamala, releasing the following statement shortly after Harris placed her presidential bid: "I endorse Kamala Harris for President. She is a proven fighter who has been a national leader in safeguarding consumers and protecting access to abortion. As a former prosecutor, she can press a forceful case against allowing Donald Trump to regain the White House. We have many talented people in our party, but Vice President Harris is the person who was chosen by the voters to succeed Joe Biden if needed. She can unite our party, take on Donald Trump, and win in November."

UPDATED: Former President Barack Obama: ENDORSED

Spencer Platt / Staff | Getty Images

Former President Barack Obama wasted no time releasing the following statement which glaringly omits any support for Harris or any other candidate. Instead, he suggests someone will be chosen at the DNC in August: "We will be navigating uncharted waters in the days ahead. But I have extraordinary confidence that the leaders of our party will be able to create a process from which an outstanding nominee emerges. I believe that Joe Biden's vision of a generous, prosperous, and united America that provides opportunity for everyone will be on full display at the Democratic Convention in August. And I expect that every single one of us are prepared to carry that message of hope and progress forward into November and beyond."

UPDATED: On Friday, July 26th Barack and Michelle Obama officially threw their support behind Harris over a phone call with the current VP:

“We called to say, Michelle and I couldn’t be prouder to endorse you and do everything we can to get you through this election and into the Oval Office.”

The fact that it took nearly a week for the former president to endorse Kamala, along with his original statement, gives the endorsement a begrudging tone.

Prominent Democratic Donor John Morgan: DID NOT ENDORSE

AP Photo/John Raoux

Prominent and wealthy Florida lawyer and democrat donor John Morgan was clearly very pessimistic about Kamala's odds aginst Trump when he gave the following statement: “You have to be enthusiastic or hoping for a political appointment to be asking friends for money. I am neither. It’s others turn now . . . The donors holding the 90 million can release those funds in the morning. It’s all yours. You can keep my million. And good luck . . . [Harris] would not be my first choice, but it’s a done deal.”

How did Trump's would-be assassin get past Secret Service?

PATRICK T. FALLON / Contributor | Getty Images

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

Former President Donald Trump on Saturday was targeted in an assassination attempt during a campaign rally in Pennsylvania. It occurred just after 6:10 p.m. while Trump was delivering his speech.

Here are the details of the “official” story. The shooter was Thomas Matthew Crooks. He was 20 years old from Bethel Park, Pennsylvania. He used an AR-15 rifle and managed to reach the rooftop of a nearby building unnoticed. The Secret Service's counter-response team responded swiftly, according to "the facts," killing Crooks and preventing further harm.

Did it though? That’s what the official story says, so far, but calling this a mere lapse in security by Secret Service doesn't add up. There are some glaring questions that need to be answered.

If Trump had been killed on Saturday, we would be in a civil war today. We would have seen for the first time the president's brains splattered on live television, and because of the details of this, I have a hard time thinking it wouldn't have been viewed as JFK 2.0.

How does someone sneak a rifle onto the rally grounds? How does someone even know that that building is there? How is it that Thomas Matthew Crooks was acting so weird and pacing in front of the metal detectors, and no one seemed to notice? People tried to follow him, but, oops, he got away.

How could the kid possibly even think that the highest ground at the venue wouldn't be watched? If I were Crooks, my first guess would be, "That’s the one place I shouldn't crawl up to with a rifle because there's most definitely going to be Secret Service there." Why wasn't anyone there? Why wasn't anyone watching it? Nobody except the shooter decided that the highest ground with the best view of the rally would be the greatest vulnerability to Trump’s safety.

Moreover, a handy ladder just happened to be there. Are we supposed to believe that nobody in the Secret Service, none of the drones, none of the things we pay millions of dollars for caught him? How did he get a ladder there? If the ladder was there, was it always there? Why was the ladder there? Secret Service welds manhole covers closed when a president drives down a road. How was there a ladder sitting around, ready to climb up to the highest ground at the venue, and the Secret Service failed to take it away?

There is plenty of video of eyewitnesses yelling that there was a guy with a rifle climbing up on a ladder to the roof for at least 120 seconds before the first shot was fired. Why were the police looking for him while Secret Service wasn't? Why did the sniper have him in his sights for over a minute before he took a shot? Why did a cop climb up the ladder to look around? When Thomas Matthew Cooks pointed a gun at him, he then ducked and came down off the ladder. Did he call anyone to warn that this young man had a rifle within range of the president?

How is it the Secret Service has a female bodyguard who doesn't even reach Trump's nipples? How was she going to guard the president's body with hers? How is it another female Secret Service agent pulled her gun out a good four minutes too late, then looked around, apparently not knowing what to do? She then couldn't even get the pistol back into the holster because she's a Melissa McCarthy body double. I don't think it's a good idea to have Melissa McCarthy guarding the president.

Here’s the critical question now: Who trusts the FBI with the shooter’s computer? Will his hard drive get filed with the Nashville manifesto? How is it that the Secret Service almost didn't have snipers at all but decided to supply them only one day before the rally because all the local resources were going to be put on Jill Biden? I want Jill Biden safe, of course. I want Jill Biden to have what the first lady should have for security, but you can’t hire a few extra guys to make sure our candidates are safe?

How is it that we have a Secret Service director, Kimberly Cheatle, whose experience is literally guarding two liters of Squirt and spicy Doritos? Did you know that's her background? She's in charge of the United States Secret Service, and her last job was as the head of security for Pepsi.

This is a game, and that's what makes this sick. This is a joke. There are people in our country who thought it was OK to post themselves screaming about the shooter’s incompetence: “How do you miss that shot?” Do you realize how close we came to another JFK? If the president hadn't turned his head at the exact moment he did, it would have gone into the center of his head, and we would be a different country today.

Now, Joe Biden is also saying that we shouldn't make assumptions about the motive of the shooter. Well, I think we can assume one thing: He wanted to kill the Republican presidential candidate. Can we agree on that at least? Can we assume that much?

How can the media even think of blaming Trump for the rhetoric when the Democrats and the media constantly call him literally worse than Hitler who must be stopped at all costs?

These questions need to be answered if we want to know the truth behind what could have been one of the most consequential days in U.S. history. Yet, the FBI has its hands clasped on all the sources that could point to the truth. There must be an independent investigation to get to the bottom of these glaring “mistakes.”

POLL: Do you think Trump is going to win the election?

Kevin Dietsch / Staff, Chip Somodevilla / Staff, Kevin Dietsch / Staff | Getty Image

It feels like all of the tension that has been building over the last four years has finally burst to the surface over the past month. Many predicted 2024 was going to be one of the most important and tumultuous elections in our lifetimes, but the last two weeks will go down in the history books. And it's not over yet.

The Democratic National Convention is in August, and while Kamala seems to be the likely candidate to replace Biden, anything could happen in Chicago. And if Biden is too old to campaign, isn't he too old to be president? Glenn doesn't think he'll make it as President through January, but who knows?

There is a lot of uncertainty that surrounds the current political landscape. Trump came out of the attempted assassination, and the RNC is looking stronger than ever, but who knows what tricks the Democrats have up their sleeves? Let us know your predictions in the poll below:

Is Trump going to win the election?

Did the assassination attempt increase Trump's chances at winning in November?

Did Trump's pick of J.D. Vance help his odds?

Did the Trump-Biden debate in June help Trump's chances?

Did Biden's resignation from the election hand Trump a victory in November? 

Do the Democrats have any chance of winning this election?