WATCH: Glenn's full interview with Senator Rand Paul

Sen. Rand Paul gave his first interview since ending his nearly 13 hour filibuster to Glenn Beck and TheBlaze. You can read the full transcript from the interview below:

GLENN: A man who is I believe going to be the logical choice for president of the United States because he is reasonable, polite, and a ‑‑ I believe in a teaching mode right now, teaching the American people, not throwing around firebombs, not calling anybody names but speaking about principles, and the principles are those basic human rights that we all know naturally we're born with. One that he spoke about last night, the right to live and to have a trial and to have a warrant, not just be killed, gunned down in the streets, or in this case killed by a drone because this president or any president says, "Yeah, take him out." Here in the United States he held his filibuster last night and his first interview, Rand Paul, welcome, sir.

RAND PAUL: Good morning, Glenn. I was thinking about you. About four or five hours into it I was thinking, gosh, Glenn Beck can sit and talk for four or five hours every day, but it's really not that easy to talk for that long.

GLENN: I can go to the bathroom.

RAND PAUL: And you get commercial breaks.

GLENN: I know. I was a little disappointed, quite honestly, Senator. I mean, you're a doctor. Did you ‑‑ did you think about giving yourself a catheter at any point? I know you're an eye doctor, but ‑‑

RAND PAUL: Yeah. Well, see, the thing is I did think about it. I put them in before and I really decided against it.

GLENN: (Laughing.)

RAND PAUL: But ‑‑

GLENN: Tell me what your ‑‑ tell me what your thoughts were last night on who joined you, who didn't join you, the success that you had or where you felt it fell short.

RAND PAUL: Well, you know, I was pretty amazed by the outpouring of support just up here. I mean, we probably had 15 congressmen come over to the Senate floor, and congressmen are allowed to come to the Senate floor but not allowed to speak or to come forward. I've never seen that happen before. And they came spontaneously. Nobody called them. They just showed up. And so one by one 15 people came in through the door which is ‑‑ you know, that to me is pretty amazing because we've all got, you know, busy careers and speaking engagements, and for 15 people to show up in support from the other House was amazing. And then really most of the senators came spontaneously too. We called one or two that do a lot with us to help us early on and then ‑‑ but gradually I'm not sure how many we had, but I'll bet you we had 15 finally show up to be supportive.

And the interesting thing is we may not be all be on the same page on drone strikes here, there and hither and yon, but on American soil we came together and said, you know what? We're not going to do targeted strikes of people not engaged in combat in America.

GLENN: Explain this to people because I know I have friends who I will talk to about this story this weekend and they will say to me, "The president is not going to do that." I mean, that's pretty much what Eric Holder was hoping people would buy into when he didn't ‑‑ wouldn't deny that it's unconstitutional or, you know, he was sitting there and I think he was just hoping that people would say, "Well, they're reasonable and so they will never do that."

RAND PAUL: Well, you know, I just recite back to them the Federalist Paper by Madison when he says, you know, if government were comprised of angels, we wouldn't need rules. And so I try to make it less about President Obama and more about what if someday we elect someone who wouldn't ‑‑ who would abuse this power. And I think when you make it in those generic terms, people can be concerned with it. And it's dangerous anytime you use an example of Hitler because everybody thinks you're overexaggerating. But Hitler was elected democratically. So democracies can make mistakes and that's why you want the rule of law to restrain them and not let them do that. And it's really an important principle, and it's difficult sometimes for people because I want to kill terrorists too, and I think if you're in a battlefield fighting us, you don't get due process. You don't get lawyers. You can be killed. If you attack us in a plane, all of those things can be rejected with any kind of lethal force. But I'm concerned about people who are sitting and eating in a diner and you might think they're associated with terrorism because they've sent an e‑mail to somebody. But really that needs to be adjudicated in the courts. And even many other people made the point that if you're sitting eating in a diner in America and you really are a terrorist, we probably get a lot more information out of you by capturing you and going ahead and interrogating you than we would by killing you.

GLENN: I can't think of any reason, any reason with perhaps the idea that you know, you have a live shot of somebody wiring up the Empire State building and there happens to be no police officers, no FBI, strangely the only thing you have ‑‑ because he's going for the red button and pushing it ‑‑ possibly at that time but not, not for any other reason can I think of.

RAND PAUL: Right. And if those instances there's really not any disagreement. Like Eric Holder brings up, you know, planes attacking the Twin Towers like they did on 9/11.

GLENN: Right.

RAND PAUL: Or attacking on Pearl Harbor. Those are attacks that obviously are repulsed but see, those aren't even targeted drone attacks. We might use drones but that's not what we're talking about when we're talking about targeted drone attacks to individuals. And none of us really are arguing against repulsing any attack or anybody anywhere near a bomb. I mean, if you're just carrying a bomb into a building, I think you can be, you know, you're bringing lethal force. You don't even have to have your finger on the button. You can eliminate someone who's carrying a bomb, carrying a weapon. You know, there's all kinds of things that can be done.

GLENN: Hang on a second. We found out yesterday through a Freedom of Information Act that the drones from the Department of Homeland Security can see if you are carrying a gun in day or night with their new drones.

RAND PAUL: Yeah, I'm not going after people necessarily caring a rifle around. That would be half of the South, and myself included. So ‑‑ and half of my staff. So now I am not talking about that but I am talking about if you've been investigating a group and obviously you see them going into the World Trade Center basement with a bomb, you know, lethal force can be used at many stages and always has been. Same with police. Police use lethal force all the time. If someone's robbing a liquor store, you don't get a warrant and you call out "stop" and if they don't stop, you get shot if you've got a weapon and you're a threat to people.

So but what's interesting is the president wants to answer the question we are not asking: Can you use lethal force when someone is imminently using lethal force. And the reason we worry about this is his drone strike program overseas, he says that you have to be an imminent threat but you don't have to be immediate. So if that standard's going to be used in the United States, we're concerned that that could be somebody sitting in a diner.

GLENN: The ‑‑ Van Jones came out and supported you.

RAND PAUL: Hey, we got Code Pink too.

GLENN: I know. I'm not sure I believe either of them but I'll ‑‑ you know, that's fine if ‑‑ I mean, I don't know why all of a sudden the Bill of Rights means something.

RAND PAUL: Here's the thing, Glenn: This is an issue that does get people who believe in liberty on the left and right, and there are people who do have consistent, sincere beliefs. Like Ron Wyden I think's a good man. I don't agree with him on most economic liberty issues, but on civil liberties he and I have a lot of agreement.

The other thing about this is if we're ever to grow as a party, the Republican Party to grow, we need to interest young people who are interested in civil liberties who may not be quite with us on the economic issues yet.

GLENN: No, no, no, no. Hang on just a second.

RAND PAUL: As they get holder, they come towards us.

GLENN: Yeah, I'm not talking about economic issues. When somebody is an avowed Communist, you know, then I don't understand your civil liberties thing. However, we can disagree on a lot of things and that's why I've been saying I really, truly believe ‑‑ and this is why I think you are the guy that could make the impact that will take us away from these two parties, you are the guy who could hold up the Bill of Rights and say, "Look, we can disagree on economic issues. We can disagree on a lot of stuff. But these, these ten ideas we should have no disagreement on. These ten ideas are what keeps the individual to be able to disagree with each other. And that's important.

RAND PAUL: Well, and that's sort of the point we were trying to make yesterday is that, you know, Eric Holder has said that the Fifth Amendment they are trying to apply in the Oval Office when they talk about drone strikes. That's debatable overseas because I think a lot of areas overseas in war you don't necessarily get the Fifth Amendment anyway. But the problem is they now say that these drone strikes are not ruling them out in America, but the Fifth Amendment being discussed privately as part of some kind of PowerPoint presentation in the Oval Office isn't really what most people conceive of when they think of due process and a jury and an accusation. So really what's applicable overseas in a drone program and some of us might debate and we might actually accept a lot of what goes on overseas, we can't accept that at home because it's different when we're talking about people who we think might be associated with terrorism. There really needs to be an accusation. There needs to be an adjudication of whether you really are or aren't. You need to be able to stand up and say, "No, no, I didn't really mean what I sent in that e‑mail" and there needs to be some discussion.

GLENN: There needs to be a trial.

RAND PAUL: Exactly.

GLENN: There's no reason why the FBI cannot go and arrest that person and have a trial. No man, no man should ever be in the position of judge, jury and executioner, ever.

RAND PAUL: Well, and see, this went on with the indefinite detention, too. See, about a year ago they passed legislation that allows them to detain citizens without a trial, and you can actually, an American can be sent to Guantanamo Bay from here without a trial. And the president at that time said, "Well, I have no intention of doing that," but he signed the legislation. Which is sort of what he's saying now: Trust me, I'm a good man, you can trust me, I will not kill Americans who are sitting in a restaurant. And, you know, I want to take him at his word, but intent isn't really what I'm looking for. And so I mentioned several times yesterday the oath of office says "I will protect, preserve and defend the Constitution." It doesn't say "I intend to when it's convenient."

STU: Senator, there has been some criticism over your filibuster last night including apparently from Lindsey Graham saying the idea that we're going to ‑‑

GLENN: Wear it as a badge of honor.

STU: The idea that we're going to use a drone to kill a citizen in a cafe in America is ridiculous.

RAND PAUL: Well, I agree it's a ridiculous idea but then why wouldn't the president say he won't.

PAT: That's exactly right.

GLENN: That's really it.

PAT: That's exactly why you do it.

STU: Here's another from the Wall Street Journal editorial: Calm down, Senator, meaning you.

GLENN: Oh, my gosh.

STU: Mr. Holder is right. This is supposedly a conservative paper. Even if he doesn't explain the law very well, the U.S. Government cannot randomly target American citizens on U.S. soil or anywhere else. What it can do under the laws of war is target an enemy combatant anywhere at any time including on U.S. soil.

RAND PAUL: Yeah, here's the problem, this idea of laws of war. And I agree with some of this aspect of laws of war. If you're in Afghanistan or if you're in a battle zone, you get no due process. You don't get a lawyer, you don't get Miranda rights. You get killed. If you are shooting American soldiers, we can use drones, bombs, we have no limit to what kind of force we will use against you.

The difference is, is that if you bring ‑‑ if you say America's part of the battlefield and you want the laws of war to apply over here, just describing someone as an enemy combatant ‑‑ see, a year or two ago, they described people who are pro life, people who are for strong immigration and strong secure borders, people who believe in third parties. I think Glenn Beck was on the list, Ron Paul was on the list. They described these people as potential terrorists and they sent out a statement to all the police in Missouri.

GLENN: Yeah.

RAND PAUL: So we have to be concerned about just saying someone's a dangerous person or enemy combatant, you have to prove that. You can't just accuse someone and then they get killed.

GLENN: Yeah. The Southern Poverty Law Center just came out with a new study. Shows that these, quote, patriot groups are a danger and pose a terrorist threat, an increasing terrorist threat. That's their language. So you've got to be really careful.

One last question, Senator, and we'll let you go: Are you going to vote for Brennan?

RAND PAUL: We're hoping to get an announcement from the White House this morning, and I don't intend to. We're trying to get a statement this morning that confirms that they are not going to target com ‑‑ not going to target Americans who are not engaged in combat in America for targeted killing. And my argument really still is mainly with that ‑‑ with the idea, not the person. I'm concerned, though, that Brennan really, it's been like pulling teeth to get him to say he'll support the Constitution and so my inclination is still to vote, you know, not letting end debate if I don't get the information. If I get the information, you know, you and I have had this discussion before. My opinion a lot of times has been to give deference even to people I disagree with, but I won't vote for him on any of the votes if I don't get information from the White House saying they are going to adhere to the Constitution. I hate doing that. ‑‑

GLENN: Senator ‑‑

RAND PAUL: I know I lost a little bit there, but ‑‑

GLENN: You're not ‑‑ at least you're clear, you're not waffling, you're not saying the popular thing, and I appreciate that. We just disagree on this. I think the man is a real danger to the United States, and putting him into that position is really quite dangerous. But I respect you.

RAND PAUL: I think you're right and, you know, the question always is, is what rises to that level. I think the constitutional question and the idea of killing citizens obviously rises to that level. The question is I'm still leaving somewhat of an opening in the sense that I want to get an honest answer from the White House. We're using the leverage of holding up the vote, and I can make them stay here through Saturday, and they hate to work on weekends. So we'll see what happens and hopefully they'll agree to give us a statement saying they're going to support the Constitution.

GLENN: Senator, thank you very much. And very proud of the stand you made yesterday. Very proud the way you handled it, and I'm just, I'm glad you're in Washington, sir. Thank you.

RAND PAUL: Thanks, Glenn.

GLENN: God bless.

More in a second. Our sponsor this half hour is Carbonite. I'm not sure how he ‑‑ we have to discuss next hour, I'm not sure what he just said.

STU: This is a positive day for Rand Paul though.

GLENN: It is, very.

STU: I don't agree with that stance. I agree with Mike Lee's stance, but still.

Do aliens... EXIST? Or is it a distraction?

Rastan | Getty Images

Yesterday, whistleblower David Charles Grusch, a decorated Air Force veteran claimed the Department of Defense has a secret team aimed at "retrieving non-human origin technical vehicles, call it spacecraft if you will, non-human exotic origin vehicles that have either landed or crashed."

Talk about UFOs and aliens has typically been siloed to the realm of sci-fi and "conspiracy theories." However, in recent years, publicized evidence of UFOs and whistleblowers, like David Grusch, have brought the once fantastical subjects into the mainstream. Could it be that alien life forms do, in fact, exist? Have they already arrived and been kept secret underneath the government's nose? Or could this all be a ruse to distract us from more pressing stories in the news cycle?

We want to hear from YOU! Do YOU think aliens and UFOs are a distraction tactic, or do you think there's truth behind these whistleblowers?

Do you believe the government has intel about UFOs?

Do you believe the government has intel about alien life?

Do you believe the government is hiding this intel from the general public?

Do you believe alien life exists? 

Do you think the media is using this story to distract us from other issues?

Remembering D-Day: We are called to the same standard

Universal History Archive / Contributor | Getty Images

79 years ago today, my grandfather jumped out of a plane. He was 17 years old when he joined the 101st Airborne Division, and at the ripe age of 18, he boarded a C-47 aircraft with the rest of his company destined for Normandy. On June 6, 1944, he jumped out of that plane onto Utah Beach, becoming a part of what would become the largest amphibious invasion in military history, Operation Overlord, or, as it's more commonly known, D-Day.

Though only 18, my grandfather was one of the oldest soldiers in his company. He recounted how many, like himself, lied about their age in order to have their shot at fighting for their country. As Omaha Beach veteran Frank Devita recounted:

We were all kids. We were too young to drink. We were too young to vote. And we were too young to die.

And many of them did.

On June 6, 1944, almost 160,000 troops from the United States, the British Commonwealth, and their allies began what would become the ultimate demise of the Third Reich, concluding one of the darkest chapters in human history. 2,500 of these soldiers were American boys who gave the ultimate sacrifice in Normandy, where most of them remain, their bodies never making it back home to the country for which they paid the ultimate price.

2,500 of these soldiers were American boys who gave the ultimate sacrifice in Normandy.

Underwood Archives / Contributor | Getty Images

In an age seemingly devoid of courage and virtue, it is natural to picture these soldiers as the greatest of men. And they were. However, we must remember these exemplars of manhood were boys, young boys, who exhibited the courage and virtue that we so seldom see in those twice their age today.

We must remember these exemplars of manhood were boys.

Remembering D-Day is not only sobering regarding the loss of life and innocence; it's sobering to consider how far our country has strayed from the ideals exemplified by the "greatest generation."

79 years ago, Americans knew what they were fighting for. As a Jewish man born in Berlin, witnessing the rise of fascism and socialism at the expense of individual liberty and the sanctity of life, my grandfather was eager to go back to his birthplace as an American soldier to fight for the fundamental principles of life and liberty that he and his family had been denied in Nazi Germany.

They were some of the lucky individuals who were able to escape—and there's a reason why he and his family chose America as their new homeland. The life and liberty they had been denied in Germany were regarded as sacred in the United States.

Yet, do we still regard these things as sacred?

JEAN-FRANCOIS MONIER / Contributor | Getty Images

Most of the United States still hold that the sanctity of life is contingent upon convenience and circumstance. Economic policies continue to morph closer to the socialism adopted by the rest of the world in the 20th century, penalizing the success and merit that was once tantalizing to immigrants like my grandfather. Moreover, 2020 extinguished any doubt that the freedoms we hold dear are expendable at the whims of our ruling class.

This isn't the same America that provided refuge to my grandfather's family nor is it the same country that he and his brothers-in-arms fought for.

On this anniversary of D-Day, it is important that we remember the sacrifice given by the young American boys, who became the greatest of men, on the beaches of Normandy. However, perhaps it is just as important to remember that we are called to the very same standard as they so powerfully exemplified: to love our country and the principles of life and freedom that stand in stark contrast to much of the onlooking world and to have the courage to defend it, even if it requires the level courage that these young men were called to.

5 new AI your children may be using and how to counter them

NurPhoto / Contributor | Getty Images

With the rapid emergence of widely available AI, it's no surprise many parents are concerned about how interacting with AI might affect their children. It feels like we are just barely beginning to understand how the internet and social media affect childhood development. Now, we suddenly have a whole new dimension to unpack, with reports of people developing emotional attachments to AI and students using AI to write entire essays. It's no wonder why some parents are starting to feel overwhelmed.

Here are 5 of the most prevalent AI programs discoverable to children and the options parents have to deal with them.

Snapchat “My AI”

Image of chat with MyAI on Snapchat

Snapchat

What is it?

My AI is an AI chatbot built into Snapchat. It's designed to look just like another human user, though it will always stay on top of the "Chat" page and can be identified by a robot emoji on the right side of the screen. The bot can be given a custom name and avatar, answer questions, chat, and provide recommendations, much like ChatGPT—the software that powers My AI, albeit less powerful.

Like ChatGPT, My AI has many biases—typically left-leaning, and is subject to mistakes and inaccuracies. Unlike ChatGTP however, My AI may claim to be a real person and a friend to the user, which might be misleading to a young person. Perhaps most disturbing, it can access your location—provided you allow Snapchat to know your location.

If you want to protect your children from My AI, you have a few different options.

The first is to disable My AI within Snapchat. Naturally, Snapchat has made disabling the bot a premium feature, only available to Snapchat+ subscribers. Assuming your child does not already have a Snapchat+ subscription, you can purchase a one-month subscription for $3.99, disable My AI from the Snapchat+ management screen, then cancel the subscription. Users are reporting that once the subscription ends the bot remains disabled, though note that your child can easily re-enable the feature at any time and it cannot be password protected.

Your other options are to either block or limit the use of the entire app from within the settings of your children's phones or to educate your child on the dangers and nature of AI.

ChatGPT/OpenAI

What is it?

ChatGPT is one of the most popular AI programs available on the internet. Its sophistication and power make it as formidable as it is fascinating. Glenn had a conversation with ChatGPT, which demonstrated its power and intelligence. It's an AI-powered chatbot and much like other chatbots, it can answer questions, chat, and provide recommendations. It can also write essays, do math worksheets, translate back and forth between many languages, write computer code, and much more. Like My AI, it can be inaccurate at times and has major left-leaning biases. The company responsible for ChatGPT, OpenAI, has other AI tools, such as DALL·E 2, an image creation program that utilizes the same AI as ChatGPT.

If you want to protect your children from ChatGPT, you have a few different options.

The first and most important thing to do is to make sure that your children know that using ChatGPT or any other AI to do homework, write essays or complete tests or quizzes IS CHEATING. There have been multiple stories recently about students using ChatGPT to write papers or do homework and the consequences they faced once they got caught. Long story short, it never ends well for the student. Make sure your children understand that although AIs are not humans, using them to complete school work IS STILL cheating.

If you want to prevent your children from accessing ChatGPT altogether, you can block it along with other websites using your web browser's child settings. Here are instructions on how to block websites for your child on Google Chrome.

Replika

What is it?

Replika is an online companion that custom builds an AI "companion," a chatbot with a customizable name and avatar. Though similar to My AI, Replika creates an avatar whose appearance and function is much more lifelike than My AI, and, consequently, more intimate. Replika advertises itself as "The AI companion who cares" and will remember things that are important to you in order to be the perfect "companion."

The app rewards users for time spent talking with their AI companions with points that can be spent on unlocking more clothes, jewelry, hairstyles, accessories, etc., and gives the user the option to skip the points altogether and purchase the digital items with real money, a common tactic in apps and mobile games.

The major thing that sets Replika apart from other chatbots is its ability to "role play," flirt, and send "hot photos." These features, which play a major role in Replika's advertising, are meant to promote Replika's use as a replacement for a "partner."

If you want to protect your children from Replika, you really only have one option.

You can block the app and website on your children's devices. Replika does not have a child mode or any way to disable explicit content, it is either all or nothing.

AI Dungeon

What is it?

AI Dungeon is a spin-off of the popular role-playing game, "Dungeons and Dragons." It's a text-based game where the player chooses or creates a scenario and plays out the scenario with the AI. For example, the player might be cast in the role of a knight and can type out what the knight says and does, and the AI will give text responses to the players' actions in an attempt to create an interactive story.

The game can be played for free, but players can also purchase access to more powerful AI, which in theory creates better stories. Moreover, you can purchase additional game modes. The major concern is that the AI can generate explicit material as well as violent scenarios, which it can describe quite graphically.

If you want to protect your children from AI Dungeon you really only have one option:

You can turn on "safe mode" from within the app settings, but it can easily be deactivated. Your best bet is to block the app on your children's devices.

YouTube

What is it?

It might surprise you to learn that the algorithm that decides what content gets recommended to you on YouTube is AI-powered. It sorts through millions of videos and decides which ones to recommend to you based on many factors, such as the channels you are subscribed to, your watch history, trending videos, etc. The goal of this AI algorithm is to keep you hooked and watching, which generates ad revenue for YouTube.

YouTube is owned by Google, and both companies have a long track record of left-wing biases, which permeates YouTube's algorithm. This can lead to videos about gun safety being labeled as "promoting violence" and videos of drag queens being promoted to children.

If you want to protect your children from the YouTube algorithm, you have a few different options.

You can set up a YouTube Kids account for your children, which gives you a lot of control over what your child can and can not find and watch on YouTube. Be warned, due to YouTube's left lean, videos such as "Drag Queen Storytime" are still available, though the channels that post them can be blocked.

It might take a while to set up properly, and things may get through the cracks, but you could set up a relatively safe YouTube account for your children. The other option, of course, is to block YouTube on your kids' devices, and web browsers, keeping them from accessing it at all.

It feels like lately hardly a week can go by without some new AI advancement—or warning—making headlines, but unless you have been paying VERY close attention you might believe the power of AI is something relegated to technical institutions or Silicon Valley labs and only accessible by the most highly trained computer wizards. But as Glenn has demonstrated, AI can now be accessed by anyone with internet access and can take many different shapes and forms—not just that of the ominous and awkward ChatBot. In fact, you are probably using AI without even realizing it.

If AI can enter into your life without you realizing it, would you even know if your CHILDREN were interacting with it?

We want to hear from YOU. Do you allow your children to use AI? Do you know if they are? Do you use AI? Are you aware of the many shapes and forms AI can take?

Do you use AI?

Do you allow your children to use AI?

Do you know if your children are using AI?

Did you know that AI is integral to the functions of many social media content recommendation algorithms, including YouTube, TikTok, and Instagram?  

Did you know that many messaging platforms your child may be using, like Discord and Snapchat, now have built-in AI chatbots?

Are you aware that AI such as ChatGPT can be easily accessed from any internet browser?

Are you aware that AI such as ChatGPT can be easily used to CHEAT school assignments?

Are you aware that AI applications exist that are meant to replace intimate human relationships and are available on most smartphones?

Are you teaching your children about AI and its potential dangers and misuses?