Rand Paul responds to critics: ‘My position is the same as it always has been’

As the 2016 presidential election draws nearer, the behavior of potential candidates is under particularly intense scrutiny. Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) is one such individual, and many have been speculating he is attempting to broaden his base by taking a less libertarian stance on certain issues. Rather than speculate about Paul’s motives, Glenn decided it was best to go straight to the source, and he spoke to Paul on radio this morning about a myriad of topics.

To begin, Glenn asked Paul to layout his position on the United States’ strategy against ISIS. Paul was adamant his position on American intervention overseas has not changed:

“Well, my position is the same as it always has been. With regard to foreign policy, I think that anytime we go to war that you need the authority of Congress. This is what the Constitution says. This is what our Founders said in the federalist papers that the president has to come and ask permission. He doesn't consult with us. He has to ask our permission… So that's the first thing.

We haven't been doing that right for quite a while – particularly with this president in Libya and now with the attacks in Iraq. When you come to Congress, Congress has a debate and that debate is: Is there a vital American interest? And I think that depends on the facts on the ground, and the facts on the ground do change over time.

I've said repeatedly, and I still say, that the facts were not there for an American interest in the Libyan Civil War or in the Syrian Civil War. I do think, though, because of our involvement and the involvement of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Qatar, and Turkey in the Syrian Civil War, that they created a safe haven for ISIS. ISIS has grown stronger, and it is my judgment now that ISIS is a threat to our consulate in Erbil and potentially to our embassy in Baghdad. We know they're a danger to citizens that have been trapped in the crossfire with the beheadings of American citizens. So I think there's an argument to be made that there's an American interest.”

One of the primary issues with the conversation surrounding an American military response to ISIS is the lack of a clear strategy from the Obama Administration. While Obama vowed to “degrade” and “destroy” ISIS, his “counter-terrorism strategy” raises more questions than answers. Glenn asked Paul if he believes we are going to war.

“I think [ISIS has] declared war on us. They're beheading innocent civilians. They have said, if they get a chance and when they get a chance, they will come to New York. So I think they've really declared war on us, and they are a significant threat,” Paul said. “Look at how rapidly they took Mosul – in the space of a day or two… So I think there's a case to be heard that our consulate could be at risk and overrun, and I think it would be inexcusable.”

While Paul sought to focus on the U.S. consulate in Erbil and why he would support U.S. intervention should the consulate be attacked, Glenn pressed Paul for a straight answer as to whether or not he supports arming the Syrian rebels to defeat ISIS. Paul was clear that he does not support the strategy:

“I'm not in favor of that. I've never been in favor of arming any of the Islamic rebels in Syria, and I think it's a mistake and counterproductive and still will be. Most of the arms we've sent in there, even when we've allegedly sent it to the moderate rebels, have wound up in the hands of ISIS. And I think that everything we've done to try to fight Assad, weakens his ability to wipe out ISIS and makes ISIS stronger.

So I think all of those – Republican and Democrat – who have favored arming the Islamic rebels in Syria have actually done us a disservice and have emboldened ISIS and made the problem worse. I think as the facts have evolved on the ground that ISIS is a potential threat to us and that we do have to do something.

I favor air strikes in coordination, but I think the battle on the ground needs to be fought by those who live there. I think the Iraqis need to step up, quit running, and defend their country. I'm sick and tired of the Saudis sitting on their haunches, funding radical Islam and doing nothing. I'd like to see the Saudis at the front of the line in the first round of fighting and the last round of fighting… Qatar, Kuwaitis, Turks, they need all to fight. It's their country, their land.

I want to see them fighting ISIS hand to hand, and I'm willing to support that with air support, with intelligence, with some weaponry in Iraq. But I'm not willing to support the so-called moderate rebels because I don't believe that they're a real fighting force.”

“I think you're in step with… where we are… I don't know where the American people stand on stuff now,” Glenn concluded. “I think he answered to my satisfaction.”

COVID is back! Or that is what we’re being told anyway...

A recent spike in COVID cases has triggered the left's alarm bells, and the following institutions have begun to reinstate COVID-era mandates. You might want to avoid them if you enjoy breathing freely...

Do YOU think institutions should bring back COVID-era mandates if cases increase? Let us know your thoughts HERE.

Morris Brown College

Both of Upstate Medical's hospitals in Syracuse, New York

Corey Henry / Senior Staff Photographer | The Daily Orange

Auburn Community Hospital, New York

Kevin Rivoli / The Citizen | Auburn Pub

Lionsgate Studio

AaronP/Bauer-Griffin / Contributor | GETTY IMAGES

United Health Services in New York

Kaiser Permanente in California

Justin Sullivan / Staff | GETTY IMAGES

There was a time when both the Left and the Right agreed that parents have the final say in raising their children... Not anymore.

In the People's Republic of California, the STATE, not parents, will determine whether children should undergo transgender treatments. The California state legislature just passed a law that will require judges in child custody cases to consider whether parents support a child’s gender transition. According to the law, the state now thinks total affirmation is an integral part of a child’s “health, safety, and welfare.”

We are inching closer to a dystopia where the state, not the parents, have ultimate rights over their children, a history that people from former Soviet nations would feign repeating.

Glenn dove into the law AND MORE in this episode titled, "Parental Advisory: The EXPLICIT plot to control YOUR kids." To get all the research that went into this episode AND information on how YOU can fight back, enter your email address below:

If you didn't catch Wednesday night's Glenn TV special, be sure to check it out HERE!

The Biden admin has let in MORE illegal aliens than the populations of THESE 15 states

GUILLERMO ARIAS / Contributor | Getty Images

There are currently an estimated 16.8 MILLION illegal aliens residing in the United States as of June 2023, according to the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR). This number is already 1.3 million higher than FAIR's January 2022 estimate of 15.5 million and a 2.3 million increase from its end-of-2020 estimate. Even Democrats like New York City's Mayor Adams Mayor Adams are waking up to what Conservatives have been warning for years: we are in a border CRISIS.

However, this isn't the same border crisis that Republicans were warning about back in 2010. In the first two years of the Biden administration alone, the illegal alien population increased by 16 PERCENT nationwide, imposing a whopping net cost of $150.6 BILLION PER YEAR on American taxpayers. That is nearly DOUBLE the total amount that the Biden administration has sent to Ukraine.

This isn't the same border crisis that Republicans were warning about back in 2010.

These large numbers often make it difficult to conceptualize the sheer impact of illegal immigration on the United States. To put it in perspective, we have listed ALL 15 states and the District of Colombia that have smaller populations than the 2.3 MILLION illegal immigrants, who have entered the U.S. under the Biden administration. That is more than the entire populations of Wyoming, Vermont, and South Dakota COMBINED—and the American taxpayers have to pay the price.

Here are all 16 states/districts that have FEWER people than the illegal immigrants who have entered the U.S. under the Biden administration.

1. New Mexico

Population: 2,110,011

2. Idaho

Population: 1,973,752

3. Nebraska

Population: 1,972,292

4. West Virginia

Population: 1,764,786

5. Hawaii

Population: 1,433,238

6. New Hampshire

Population: 1,402,957

7. Maine

Population: 1,393,442

8. Montana

Population: 1,139,507

9. Rhode Island

Population: 1,090,483

10. Delaware

Population: 1,031,985

11. South Dakota

Population: 923,484

12. North Dakota

Population: 780,588

13. Alaska

Population: 732,984

14. Washington DC

Population: 674,815

15. Vermont

Population: 647,156

16. Wyoming

Population: 583,279

POLL: Should the Government control the future of AI?

The Washington Post / Contributor | Getty Images

Earlier this week, tech titans, lawmakers, and union leaders met on Capitol Hill to discuss the future of AI regulation. The three-hour meeting boasted an impressive roster of tech leaders including, Elon Musk, Mark Zuckerberg, Bill Gates, Google CEO Sundar Pichai, OpenAI CEO Sam Altman, and others, along with more than 60 US Senators.

Tech Titans and Senators gathered in the Kennedy Caucus Room.The Washington Post / Contributor | Getty Images

The meeting was closed to the public, so what was exactly discussed is unknown. However, what we do know is that a majority of the CEOs support AI regulation, the most vocal of which is Elon Musk. During the meeting, Musk called AI "a double-edged sword" and strongly pushed for regulation in the interest of public safety.

A majority of the CEOs support AI regulation.

Many other related issues were discussed, including the disruption AI has caused to the job market. As Glenn has discussed on his program, the potential for AI to alter or destroy jobs is very real, and many have already felt the effects. From taxi drivers to Hollywood actors and writers, AI's presence can be felt everywhere and lawmakers are unsure how to respond.

The potential for AI to alter or destroy jobs is very real.

Ultimately, the meeting's conclusion was less than decisive, with several Senators making comments to the tune of "we need more time before we act." The White House is expected to release an executive order regarding AI regulation by the end of the year. But now it's YOUR turn to tell us what YOU think needs to be done!

Should A.I. be regulated?

Can the government be trusted with the power to regulate A.I.? 

Can Silicon Valley be trusted to regulate AI? 

Should AI development be slowed for safety, despite its potential advantages?

If a job can be done cheaper and better by AI, should it be taken away from a human?

Do you feel that your job is threatened by AI?