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

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.

From the moment the 33-year-old Thomas Jefferson arrived at the Continental Congress in Philadelphia in 1776, he was on the radical side. That caused John Adams to like him immediately. Then the Congress stuck Jefferson and Adams together on the five-man committee to write a formal statement justifying a break with Great Britain, and their mutual admiration society began.

Jefferson thought Adams should write the Declaration. But Adams protested, saying, “It can't come from me because I'm obnoxious and disliked." Adams reasoned that Jefferson was not obnoxious or disliked, therefore he should write it. Plus, he flattered Jefferson, by telling him he was a great writer. It was a master class in passing the buck.

So, over the next 17 days, Jefferson holed up in his room, applying his lawyer skills to the ideas of the Enlightenment. He borrowed freely from existing documents like the Virginia Declaration of Rights. He later wrote that “he was not striving for originality of principle or sentiment." Instead, he hoped his words served as “an expression of the American mind."

It's safe to say he achieved his goal.

The five-man committee changed about 25 percent of Jefferson's first draft of the Declaration before submitting it to Congress. Then, Congress altered about one-fifth of that draft. But most of the final Declaration's words are Jefferson's, including the most famous passage — the Preamble — which Congress left intact. The result is nothing less than America's mission statement, the words that ultimately bind the nation together. And words that we desperately need to rediscover because of our boiling partisan rage.

The Declaration is brilliant in structure and purpose. It was designed for multiple audiences: the King of Great Britain, the colonists, and the world. And it was designed for multiple purposes: rallying the troops, gaining foreign allies, and announcing the creation of a new country.

The Declaration is structured in five sections: the Introduction, Preamble, the Body composed of two parts, and the Conclusion. It's basically the most genius breakup letter ever written.

In the Introduction, step 1 is the notificationI think we need to break up. And to be fair, I feel I owe you an explanation...

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another…

The Continental Congress felt they were entitled by “the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" to “dissolve the political bands," but they needed to prove the legitimacy of their cause. They were defying the world's most powerful nation and needed to motivate foreign allies to join the effort. So, they set their struggle within the entire “Course of human events." They're saying, this is no petty political spat — this is a major event in world history.

Step 2 is declaring what you believe in, your standardsHere's what I'm looking for in a healthy relationship...

This is the most famous part of the Declaration; the part school children recite — the Preamble:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

That's as much as many Americans know of the Declaration. But the Preamble is the DNA of our nation, and it really needs to be taken as a whole:

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

The Preamble takes us through a logical progression: All men are created equal; God gives all humans certain inherent rights that cannot be denied; these include the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; to protect those rights, we have governments set up; but when a government fails to protect our inherent rights, people have the right to change or replace it.

Government is only there to protect the rights of mankind. They don't have any power unless we give it to them. That was an extraordinarily radical concept then and we're drifting away from it now.

The Preamble is the justification for revolution. But note how they don't mention Great Britain yet. And again, note how they frame it within a universal context. These are fundamental principles, not just squabbling between neighbors. These are the principles that make the Declaration just as relevant today. It's not just a dusty parchment that applied in 1776.

Step 3 is laying out your caseHere's why things didn't work out between us. It's not me, it's you...

This is Part 1 of the Body of the Declaration. It's the section where Jefferson gets to flex his lawyer muscles by listing 27 grievances against the British crown. This is the specific proof of their right to rebellion:

He has obstructed the administration of justice...

For imposing taxes on us without our consent...

For suspending our own legislatures...

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us...

Again, Congress presented these “causes which impel them to separation" in universal terms to appeal to an international audience. It's like they were saying, by joining our fight you'll be joining mankind's overall fight against tyranny.

Step 4 is demonstrating the actions you took I really tried to make this relationship work, and here's how...

This is Part 2 of the Body. It explains how the colonists attempted to plead their case directly to the British people, only to have the door slammed in their face:

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury...

They too have been deaf to the voice of justice... We must, therefore... hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

This basically wrapped up America's argument for independence — we haven't been treated justly, we tried to talk to you about it, but since you refuse to listen and things are only getting worse, we're done here.

Step 5 is stating your intent — So, I think it's best if we go our separate ways. And my decision is final...

This is the powerful Conclusion. If people know any part of the Declaration besides the Preamble, this is it:

...that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved...

They left no room for doubt. The relationship was over, and America was going to reboot, on its own, with all the rights of an independent nation.

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

The message was clear — this was no pitchfork mob. These were serious men who had carefully thought through the issues before taking action. They were putting everything on the line for this cause.

The Declaration of Independence is a landmark in the history of democracy because it was the first formal statement of a people announcing their right to choose their own government. That seems so obvious to us now, but in 1776 it was radical and unprecedented.

In 1825, Jefferson wrote that the purpose of the Declaration was “not to find out new principles, or new arguments, never before thought of… but to place before mankind the common sense of the subject, in terms so plain and firm… to justify ourselves in the independent stand we are compelled to take."

You're not going to do better than the Declaration of Independence. Sure, it worked as a means of breaking away from Great Britain, but its genius is that its principles of equality, inherent rights, and self-government work for all time — as long as we actually know and pursue those principles.

On June 7, 1776, the Second Continental Congress met in Philadelphia at the Pennsylvania State House, better known today as Independence Hall. Virginia delegate Richard Henry Lee introduced a motion calling for the colonies' independence. The “Lee Resolution" was short and sweet:

Resolved, That these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent States, that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved.

Intense debate followed, and the Congress voted 7 to 5 (with New York abstaining) to postpone a vote on Lee's Resolution. They called a recess for three weeks. In the meantime, the delegates felt they needed to explain what they were doing in writing. So, before the recess, they appointed a five-man committee to come up with a formal statement justifying a break with Great Britain. They appointed two men from New England — Roger Sherman and John Adams; two from the middle colonies — Robert Livingston and Benjamin Franklin; and one Southerner — Thomas Jefferson. The responsibility for writing what would become the Declaration of Independence fell to Jefferson.

In the rotunda of the National Archives building in Washington, D.C., there are three original documents on permanent display: the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the Declaration of Independence. These are the three pillars of the United States, yet America barely seems to know them anymore. We need to get reacquainted — quickly.

In a letter to his friend John Adams in 1816, Jefferson wrote: “I like the dreams of the future, better than the history of the past."

America used to be a forward-looking nation of dreamers. We still are in spots, but the national attitude that we hear broadcast loudest across media is not looking toward the future with optimism and hope. In late 2017, a national poll found 59% of Americans think we are currently at the “lowest point in our nation's history that they can remember."

America spends far too much time looking to the past for blame and excuse. And let's be honest, even the Right is often more concerned with “owning the left" than helping point anyone toward the practical principles of the Declaration of Independence. America has clearly lost touch with who we are as a nation. We have a national identity crisis.

The Declaration of Independence is America's thesis statement, and without it America doesn't exist.

It is urgent that we get reacquainted with the Declaration of Independence because postmodernism would have us believe that we've evolved beyond the America of our founding documents, and thus they're irrelevant to the present and the future. But the Declaration of Independence is America's thesis statement, and without it America doesn't exist.

Today, much of the nation is so addicted to partisan indignation that "day-to-day" indignation isn't enough to feed the addiction. So, we're reaching into America's past to help us get our fix. In 2016, Democrats in the Louisiana state legislature tabled a bill that would have required fourth through sixth graders to recite the opening lines of the Declaration. They didn't table it because they thought it would be too difficult or too patriotic. They tabled it because the requirement would include the phrase “all men are created equal" and the progressives in the Louisiana legislature didn't want the children to have to recite a lie. Representative Barbara Norton said, “One thing that I do know is, all men are not created equal. When I think back in 1776, July the fourth, African Americans were slaves. And for you to bring a bill to request that our children will recite the Declaration, I think it's a little bit unfair to us. To ask our children to recite something that's not the truth. And for you to ask those children to repeat the Declaration stating that all men's are free. I think that's unfair."

Remarkable — an elected representative saying it wouldn't be fair for students to have to recite the Declaration because “all men are not created equal." Another Louisiana Democrat explained that the government born out of the Declaration “was used against races of people." I guess they missed that part in school where they might have learned that the same government later made slavery illegal and amended the Constitution to guarantee all men equal protection under the law. The 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments were an admission of guilt by the nation regarding slavery, and an effort to right the wrongs.

Yet, the progressive logic goes something like this: many of the men who signed the Declaration of Independence, including Thomas Jefferson who wrote it, owned slaves; slavery is evil; therefore, the Declaration of Independence is not valid because it was created by evil slave owners.

It's a sad reality that the left has a very hard time appreciating the universal merits of the Declaration of Independence because they're so hung up on the long-dead issue of slavery. And just to be clear — because people love to take things out of context — of course slavery was horrible. Yes, it is a total stain on our history. But defending the Declaration of Independence is not an effort to excuse any aspect of slavery.

Okay then, people might say, how could the Founders approve the phrase “All men are created equal," when many of them owned slaves? How did they miss that?

They didn't miss it. In fact, Thomas Jefferson included an anti-slavery passage in his first draft of the Declaration. The paragraph blasted King George for condoning slavery and preventing the American Colonies from passing legislation to ban slavery:

He has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights to life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating and carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere... Determined to keep open a market where men should be bought and sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce.

We don't say “execrable" that much anymore. It means, utterly detestable, abominable, abhorrent — basically very bad.

Jefferson was upset when Georgia and North Carolina threw up the biggest resistance to that paragraph. Ultimately, those two states twisted Congress' arm to delete the paragraph.

Still, how could a man calling the slave trade “execrable" be a slaveowner himself? No doubt about it, Jefferson was a flawed human being. He even had slaves from his estate in Virginia attending him while he was in Philadelphia, in the very apartment where he was writing the Declaration.

Many of the Southern Founders deeply believed in the principles of the Declaration yet couldn't bring themselves to upend the basis of their livelihood. By 1806, Virginia law made it more difficult for slave owners to free their slaves, especially if the owner had significant debts as Jefferson did.

At the same time, the Founders were not idiots. They understood the ramifications of signing on to the principles described so eloquently in the Declaration. They understood that logically, slavery would eventually have to be abolished in America because it was unjust, and the words they were committing to paper said as much. Remember, John Adams was on the committee of five that worked on the Declaration and he later said that the Revolution would never be complete until the slaves were free.

Also, the same generation that signed the Declaration started the process of abolition by banning the importation of slaves in 1807. Jefferson was President at the time and he urged Congress to pass the law.

America has an obvious road map that, as a nation, we're not consulting often enough.

The Declaration took a major step toward crippling the institution of slavery. It made the argument for the first time about the fundamental rights of all humans which completely undermined slavery. Planting the seeds to end slavery is not nearly commendable enough for leftist critics, but you can't discount the fact that the seeds were planted. It's like they started an expiration clock for slavery by approving the Declaration. Everything that happened almost a century later to end slavery, and then a century after that with the Civil Rights movement, flowed from the principles voiced in the Declaration.

Ironically for a movement that calls itself progressive, it is obsessed with retrying and judging the past over and over. Progressives consider this a better use of time than actually putting past abuses in the rearview and striving not to be defined by ancestral failures.

It can be very constructive to look to the past, but not when it's used to flog each other in the present. Examining history is useful in providing a road map for the future. And America has an obvious road map that, as a nation, we're not consulting often enough. But it's right there, the original, under glass. The ink is fading, but the words won't die — as long as we continue to discuss them.

'Good Morning Texas' gives exclusive preview of Mercury One museum

Screen shot from Good Morning Texas

Mercury One is holding a special exhibition over the 4th of July weekend, using hundreds of artifacts, documents and augmented reality experiences to showcase the history of slavery — including slavery today — and a path forward. Good Morning Texas reporter Paige McCoy Smith went through the exhibit for an exclusive preview with Mercury One's chief operating officer Michael Little on Tuesday.

Watch the video below to see the full preview.

Click here to purchase tickets to the museum (running from July 4 - 7).

Over the weekend, journalist Andy Ngo and several other apparent right-leaning people were brutally beaten by masked-gangs of Antifa protesters in Portland, Oregon. Short for "antifascist," Antifa claims to be fighting for social justice and tolerance — by forcibly and violently silencing anyone with opposing opinions. Ngo, who was kicked, punched, and sprayed with an unknown substance, is currently still in the hospital with a "brain bleed" as a result of the savage attack. Watch the video to get the details from Glenn.