How to combat ISIS with 2016 hopeful Rand Paul

On radio Monday morning, Senator Rand Paul accused President Obama of trying to "bait-and-switch" the American people to focus on gun control rather than the real issues threatening our country.

In a speech Sunday night from the Oval Office, the president said the U.S. was doing everything possible to stop ISIS and proposed taking away guns from anyone on a no-fly list. To help illustrate how ludicrous this plan would be, Paul suggested an analogy.

"What if we had a no-fly list and we were going to take away First Amendment rights from certain journalists?" Paul asked. "I think journalists would want some kind of court proceeding before they had their First Amendment taken away. It should be the same for the Second Amendment."

He continued.

"I'm all for taking away guns of terrorists. In fact, I don't want to let them enter our country to begin with," he said.

Pat then asked what Paul's strategy would be for defeating ISIS if he were to become president. Watch his response.

Listen to the full segment or read the transcript below.

Below is a rush transcript of this segment, it might contain errors.

PAT: Senator and US presidential hopeful Rand Paul joining us right now. Senator Paul, welcome to the Glenn Beck Program.

RAND: Good morning, guys. Thanks for having me.

PAT: Thanks for being here. How impressed were you with the presidential speech last night? That had to -- wow, that was --

RAND: Not much, I guess is one way of putting it.

PAT: Not much. Yeah.

RAND: I think that he really has tried to do a bait-and-switch on us. He thinks that we want to talk about gun control, and that's how we're going to stop this, and that this is a domestic situation and we have to do gun control. In reality, we ought to talk about who we're going to admit into the country and whether or not we have strict enough scrutiny on those who come to our country.

STU: It's amazing to see the proposals coming around. Particularly I'm totally worked up about this idea of the no-fly list meaning that you can't execute your constitutional rights. So can you -- because I think to the average person, Senator, you hear a terrorist no-fly list, someone who is on that list can just go and buy a firearm, it does seem insane on its face. Can you explain why that's not the case.

RAND: Well, I guess the way to do it is through an analogy. What if we had a no-fly list and we were going to take away First Amendment rights from certain journalists? I think journalists would want some kind of court proceeding before they had their First Amendment taken away. It should be the same for the Second Amendment. I'm all for taking away guns of terrorists. In fact, I don't want to let them enter our country to begin with.

But the question is, how do we determine who is, and is there some kind of court proceeding? Ted Kennedy was on the watch list. So was Cat Stevens. And so if you have a list like that -- and you also understand in the past, over the past several years, they had these things called fusion centers where they gave out lists to policemen within certain states and said, "You need to be on the lookout for people who have a pro-life bumper sticker, an anti-immigration bumper sticker, constitutional party, or people who support Ron Paul." And these were people who were on a watch list in Missouri. And it's like, well, for goodness' sake, are we going to take away their constitutional rights because some government person put them on a list? So there's a great deal of danger. I would be for it as long as your rights are not taken before you have a court proceeding.

PAT: Rand, we were talking earlier about Cat Stevens being on the no-fly list, and we think he might have deserved it just based on the song Moon Shadow. Do you agree with that?

RAND: You know, I've heard that song about 10 million times, and I may not need to hear it again.

JEFFY: So he agrees.

STU: I think he's on board on that one. That's good. This is amazing.

PAT: That's great. Yeah.

STU: The phrasing from the president last night was really disturbing. He couldn't possibly understand the argument that would -- that would make it so that terrorists on a no-fly list could get a gun. And it's like, well, isn't due process that argument? Is this the same argument we've heard from the left forever that this no-fly list shouldn't even exist and that people are being swept up into it unnecessarily.

RAND: Well, and what they've done really is a bait-and-switch. It's all about gun control instead of being about terrorism. And, really, even if you look at it from the gun control aspect, California has everything the left has ever wanted. Every gun control measure that has ever been sought, California has. And yet these people were still able to purchase guns and have them. Why? Because if you're going to commit suicide, if you're going to kill people and commit suicide, you really don't care too much about gun laws.

PAT: That's very true.

STU: Although they would never speed to get away from the incident because of the speeding laws.

PAT: Right. The speed limit, they'll stay within.

RAND: Exactly.

PAT: So what is the answer to defeating ISIS in the Middle East? If you were to become president, what is your strategy here?

RAND: The first thing I would do is I would stop immigration from the Middle East. I think we ought to just put it on a moratorium and say, until we have a better handle on who is already here and whether the people here are obeying our laws, I would just stop immigration from the Middle East. I would also say that if you're coming from Europe, you have to go through global entry. You have to go through a background check.

Because the problem is, we've had wide open migration into Europe of large populations. We're talking about hundreds of thousands of people who are against western civilization. Against what the governments of Europe as well as our government is -- and so I think you can't just have freedom of travel from Europe to here without some closer scrutiny. So the first thing we got to do is scrutinize travel and scrutinize immigration to our country.

The second thing I would do is I would acknowledge that the only lasting peace, the only lasting victory is going to come from Muslim boots on the ground. Arab boots on the ground are going to have to defeat ISIS.

And the reason is that if American boots on the ground do it or if Europeans do it, they will simply say, "It's infidels. It's Christians. It's Crusaders." And another generation rises up. So it has to be Islam saying, "This does not represent us." It can't be Americans saying, "This doesn't represent Islam," it has to be Muslims saying, "This doesn't represent Islam."

PAT: I like that. Yeah.

STU: Let me give you some standard horse race analysis here. You tell me why it's wrong.

People are saying, Rand Paul had this great moment where people were all of a sudden turning Libertarian. Now with all the ISIS attacks and Paris and everything else, now the typical conservative voter is looking back to sort of the policies they used to have, which was more interventionist and jumping into these situations more often. How do you make a case as Rand Paul to win in that environment?

RAND: You know, the funny thing is that if I weren't reading any of the pundits, which I probably shouldn't be doing, but if I weren't reading the pundits or looking at the national stories as I travel the country, I think our crowds are bigger, more enthusiastic. I think we -- you know, we had over 1,000 kids at a recent college in Iowa. Two different college events. Nearly 1,000 kids. We are drawing large enthusiastic crowds. And I guess I don't see that we're not doing very well until I read the stories from the pundits.

(laughter)

But it's also -- I think this is the first presidential election that I think we've really led by the nose by pollsters. And I think the polling is less accurate than it's ever been. They did polling in Kentucky, and the Republican candidate was said to be down five points with one week to go, and he won by eight points. So they were off by 13 points.

If the polls are off and they're underrepresenting, particularly college kids, where we think we're doing well, and among independents, I think we could be doing much better than it's actually represented. But the bottom line is, we're going to wait and find out from voters. When we hear from voters, you know, I may well reassess. But until then, we're in it to win it. And we'll find out what the voters say February 1st.

PAT: So how long -- how deep can you get into that, into the primary season, Rand?

RAND: We can go all the way through if people will vote for us. Obviously, you have to look and see what your vote totals are. We're not in it just to stay in it for longevity. And as long as I believe that I can win and as long as the votes come in indicating that, we'll be -- we'll stay in the race.

PAT: The next debate is a week from tomorrow. Do you feel like you're under any pressure to do anything spectacular or are you feeling pretty good heading into this?

RAND: Yeah, I'm thinking of singing in my opening. What do you think, a Cat Stevens song?

STU: Yes!

PAT: Just so it's not Moon Shadow, maybe Peace Train?

RAND: Now, Peace Train might be a good one for me to open with.

PAT: Yeah.

RAND: No. I probably will not sing. My wife has forbidden me from singing outside of the house. So -- but, no, I think if we can have a debate like the last one -- the last debate had a little more equality of time for the candidates.

PAT: Yeah, it did.

RAND: And it was more open for discussion. They let you jump in. So I was allowed to jump in and point out, you know, that I didn't think Marco Rubio was a conservative because he wanted to borrow a trillion dollars in new money. And I'm hoping to get to point that out again and again. And I also might want to point out that I don't think he's very good on national defense because he's for an open border, and I think we have to control our border better.

STU: One last thing, Rand. As a doctor and, of course, obviously all doctors are science deniers, we're having this Paris thing go on. And they're talking about these restrictions on CO2. The projected result of which, if all the science is right, in 85 years, instead of the temperature rising 4 degrees, it would rise 3.95 degrees if fully implemented. We have a president who says he wants to go ahead and walk down this road. Why is it the wrong decision?

RAND: Well, I think we shouldn't succumb to alarmists and people who believe the end of the world is near. I think that that kind of conclusion really is not very scientific.

I've introduced legislation to say that any treaty that comes out of Paris that he wants to bring back has to be passed as a treaty. So we would actually have to have two-thirds of the Senate agree to it if it's going to be given to the American people or be enforced or foisted upon us.

But I think if you look at the climate change science, if you want to call it science, really, they've been wrong about almost everything. You know, their modeling has been way off in the last couple of decades. And I think to say that we're going to be drowning, the Statue of Liberty is going to be drowning, the polar bears are going to be drowning and all this nonsense, is to go and leap too far.

Now, does man have something to do with adding carbon to the atmosphere? Sure. But does nature also have something to do with the cycles that we have with our climate? Have we had times in which we've had much more carbon in the air? Have we had times in which we've been much warmer than this? Yes. I don't think we should jump hysterically to conclusions. We should try to control pollutions, and we should the control of pollution with the economy. We just shouldn't say we're just going to cripple our economy in search of something that may or may not be so absolute.

PAT: How do people get involved if they want to help out with your campaign?

RAND: RandPaul.com. Or go to our Facebook. And we would love to see you there.

STU: And if you do make a donation, Rand Paul is promising to sing at the next debate, which I think is exciting.

PAT: Peace Train, so it's going to be good.

RAND: Yeah, there probably is a donation limit at which, if we exceed that, that I will sing.

(laughter)

PAT: Thanks, Rand. Appreciate it.

RAND: All right. Thanks, guys.

IN PLAIN SIGHT: COVID and mental health

NotesfromPoland.com

A lot of times, people drown in plain sight. Largely because most of us haven't been taught what to look for. We're accustomed to the movie version of a person struggling in the water — flailing their arms and shrieking and gymnastic — but in real life drowning is quieter, something you could see and not realize. It's never been harder than it is now, in 2020, as we're all locked indoors, alone, out of sight.

Every year, an estimated one million people worldwide kill themselves. A death every 40 seconds.

America is in the throes of a suicide epidemic, with the highest suicide rate since World War II. Suicide rates have risen 30 percent since 1999, and the number keeps climbing. There were 45,000 suicide deaths in 2016 alone. In 2017, there were 47,000. Roughly 129 people a day.

In 2018, 10.7 million American adults seriously thought about suicide, 3.3 million made a plan, and 1.4 million attempted suicide. There were 48,344 recorded suicides. That's roughly one person every 11 minutes. And that's 1,171 more people than the year before. The average American knows 600 people. Meaning, the increase of suicide deaths in one year was more than double the number of people you know. And that's just the difference.

Suicide is the 10th-leading cause of death in this country. It is the second leading cause of death among children, and since 2000, there has been a worrying jump in the suicide rate of 15-to-24-year-olds.

In January, USA Today ran an article about the rising suicide rates, "More and more Americans are dying by suicide. What are we missing?

That was January. Three months before the pandemic sent all of us indoors.

An article in The BMJ, a weekly peer-reviewed medical journal, points that "Widely reported studies modeling the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on suicide rates predicted increases ranging from 1% to 145%." In other words, "We really don't know."

So we can't prove exactly how much damage the pandemic and the lockdowns have caused, or how many suicides there have been this year compared to last year because those numbers will take a while to assemble. But we can get an idea by measuring the scope and prevalence of the conditions that lead to suicide, and they are significantly higher in 2020. Because what's not in doubt is that the pandemic has gravely affected people's mental health.

Affect on Adults

For starters, while suicides tend to drop at the start of pandemics, they quickly increase in response to the conditions of quarantine. It's also true that suicide rates increase during recessions.

A study in Science Advances journal noted that "as the rates of COVID-19 positive cases and deaths increased substantially across the United States, COVID-19–related acute stress and depressive symptoms increased over time in the United States." A CDC report from August found that in 2020 compared to 2019, adults' symptoms of anxiety have tripled and symptoms of depression have quadrupled (24.3% versus 6.5%). Compared to 2018, two different studies concluded that symptoms of depression and "serious psychological distress" are triple the level they were. In fact, the rates of anxiety and depression have been higher throughout the pandemic than "after other large-scale traumas like September 11th, Hurricane Katrina and the Hong Kong unrest." Ten percent of Americans surveyed in June said they had seriously considered suicide in the past 30 days.

French philosopher Albert Camus once wrote that "In the depths of winter, I finally learned that within me there lay an invincible summer."

Well, we find ourselves — literally and figuratively — in the depths of winter.

Well, we find ourselves — literally and figuratively — in the depths of winter.

Lockdowns

A number of studies warn about the danger posed by lockdowns. One in particular, published in Lancet, summarizes it well: "Most reviewed studies reported negative psychological effects including post-traumatic stress symptoms, confusion, and anger. Stressors included longer quarantine duration, infection fears, frustration, boredom, inadequate supplies, inadequate information, financial loss, and stigma. Some researchers have suggested long-lasting effects."

The report is very clear about how to minimize the harm of quarantine: Give people as much information as possible, reduce boredom, improve communication, emphasize altruism, and keep lockdowns as short as possible.

Affect on Children

The pandemic and the lockdowns have been especially difficult, and even fatal, for one group in particular, but you might not have heard about it because the media is too obsessed with identity politics to stop for a moment and look at the bigger picture. I'm talking about the most important population: Children.

But they aren't dying of Covid. In fact, children are more likely to die of homicides, drowning, or even fires and burns, than they are to die of Covid. The Academy of Pediatrics reported that, as of December 3rd, children accounted for slightly more than 0% of all COVID-19 cases, and even fewer deaths, about 0.11%, about 160 in total. There are still 15 states with zero reported child deaths. They don't even catch it as often: They account for less than 2% of the total confirmed COVID-19 cases globally. Even here in America, the nation with the highest infection rates, that number is the same: 2%. And, when they do catch it, the overwhelming majority of them experience either no symptoms or mild symptoms. Another recent study found that, compared to the flu, children play a minimal role in spreading Covid-19, and most children who contract it actually get it from their parents.

So they rarely catch it, they almost never die because of it, and they don't spread it. Yet, according to data from the CDC, the rate of children visiting emergency rooms has skyrocketed. Compared with 2019, the number of 5-11-year-olds is 24% higher, while the rate for 12-17-year-olds is 31% higher. This surge is due to mental health reasons.

According to a ton of studies (Here, Here, Here, Here, Here, Here, Here, Here, Here, Here, and Here), during the pandemic, children of all ages have "had high rates of depression, anxiety, and pos-traumatic symptoms as expected in the aftermath of any disaster."

The reality is unequivocal: The lockdowns and quarantines are bad for children. Certainly much, much worse than the disease itself, a point Donald Trump was heckled by the media for making. We waded through a sea of studies, reports, and articles, and the consensus was so consistent that we shifted our focus to looking for studies that said otherwise.

The International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction released a study this month that found that three in four children have reported having depression, and that "the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on children's mental well-being is worrying 60% of parents, according to a survey by parents with primary-aged children and 87% reported that their children were missing school and less than half stated that their children were feeling lonely, which altogether affects their children's mental health and wellbeing."

One study found that children of all age groups "showed more clinging, inattention, and irritability. However, 3-6 year-olds were more likely to manifest clinginess and fear that family members might contract the infection, while 6-18 year-olds were more likely to show inattention and persistent inquiry." Another study found that "In many households, children who end up staying indoors become restless and, in some cases, violent."

Children need predictability... and they need to believe that their parents are in control of things.

Uncertainty, social isolation, and parental angst. Children need predictability, they need activities, and they need to believe that their parents are in control of things. But, as a result of draconian lockdowns, they have spent much more time in front of screens. They are also more susceptible to sleep disruptions, or "somatic symptoms." And they are at a much higher risk for sexual abuse and domestic abuse, and, without school, unable to escape it.

Like us, they'll be dealing with the long term effects of the pandemic and lockdown for the rest of their lives. The difference is, we're more equipped to handle it.

One report refers to the undue harm lockdowns cause children as "collateral damage," adding that "we all have a responsibility to promote the health and well-being of children at home, and to ask questions and fight for service provision in areas where clinicians are not needed to fight COVID-19 but are needed to protect children."

As a society, it is our duty to protect the defenseless, and there is no group of people more defenseless, yet more important, than children.

German philosopher Kant wrote a lot about suicide. His argument can basically be boiled down to two parts:

1) I ought to do my duty as long as I am alive; and

2) It is my duty to go on living as long as possible.

He used the anecdote of civilization as a human body. We must only harm our body if it's necessary for self-preservation. If a toe is necrotic for whatever reason, we amputate it, so that we can preserve our body, our person, as a whole. Suicide, on the other hand, is an act of destruction. It is harmful, not just to the person it removes from humanity, but to humanity as a whole. Each of us plays a role in making sure that body remains in motion. So, when a person resorts to suicide, they are harming the body, the whole, they are depriving society and humanity. They are severing limbs or slicing our arms. They are robbing us of every good that they would bring.

School

Most European countries have closed their schools. According to UNESCO, 91% of children worldwide have been affected by school closures. A study from Bangladesh found that Bangladeshi children were suffering from higher rates of depression, anxiety, and sleeping disorder. In Italy and Spain, one study determined that 85% of parents have noticed negative changes in their children's emotions and behaviors since the pandemic. In England, deaths by suicide among children increased shortly after the country's first lockdown. In Holland, a study "found that young people reported a significant increase in severe anxiety and sleeping problems during the country's lockdown period." Numerous studies from China found that roughly a quarter of children were suffering from the same symptoms. In India, like many other countries, children are spending so much time in front of screens that experts fear it will lead to "psycho-social problems, like lower self-esteem."

Meanwhile, in Sweden, where schools and childcare centers have remained open, the spread of Covid as a result of children attending school is practically nonexistent. Over the next few years, research will show us exactly how Sweden's no-lockdown approach affected their youth.

The research concludes that children should remain in school.

Overwhelmingly — and I mean overwhelmingly — the research concludes that children should remain in school. Academic articles are known for their boring, long-winded, incomprehensible titles, but not these. Like this one: "Mitigate the effects of home confinement on children during the COVID-19 outbreak."

Children need physical activity, which is crucial to minimizing depression and anxiety. Schools provide structure. Schools are a consistent source for children's nutrition, and a lapse in nutrition can have psychological effects. Schools also provide healthcare.

School closures have also put children at a higher risk of domestic violence or sexual abuse, because "school is a safe space where children can report problems and where signs of abuse can be detected."

Children need community. They need friends. While many adults are at home with their kids, most of us are working, and children left alone on workdays are more likely to have anxiety or depression.

Teenagers

According to the CDC, of every demographic, 18-24-year-olds have been most affected, with 75% of respondents in that age range reporting at least one negative mental health symptom. One-quarter said they were using more drugs and alcohol to cope with pandemic-related stress, and another one-quarter said they had "seriously considered suicide" in the previous 30 days.

No prom. No graduation. No church. No dates. No birthday parties — birthdays spent alone. No games. No homecoming. No extracurricular clubs. No sports. No Spring Break — no vacations at all. No funerals, although there are plenty of people being buried.

Teenagers in lockdown are more concerned about their more basic needs. They feel less connected to other people. They are learning less and spending less time on school work. In other words, they are hurting, and bad.

The number of studies that back this up is daunting.

Three papers (Here, Here, and Here) determined that older adolescents suffer more symptoms of depression than younger ones and children. Another study describes the "collective trauma" that the lockdowns have had on teenagers.

The National 4-H Council found that:

●81% of teens say mental health is a significant issue for young people in the U.S., and 64% of teens believe that the experience of COVID-19 will have a lasting impact on their generation's mental health.

●7 in 10 teens have experienced struggles with mental health.

●55% of teens say they've experienced anxiety, 45% excessive stress, and 43% depression.

●61% of teens said that the COVID-19 pandemic has increased their feeling of loneliness.

●82% of teens calling on America to talk more openly and honestly about mental health issues in this country.

Life has always been hard for teenagers, but even before the pandemic, it has been especially rough on American teenagers, who are twice as likely "today to have more anxiety symptoms and twice as likely to see a mental health professional as teens in the 1980s.

Here's how the conversation went on radio:

ENOUGH IS ENOUGH: The politics of COVID-19 is DESTROYING our children youtu.be


On "Glenn TV" this week, Megyn Kelly, host of the "Megyn Kelly Show," told Glenn Beck she believes the Democrats' talk of unity is "all nonsense" and forecasted the "death of journalism" under a Biden administration.

Megyn cited President Joe Biden's unwillingness to make concessions that would help unify Democrats and Republicans as an example of how much he actually cares about unity, and added that, while she's all for lowering the political temperature in America, she also believes there are some personal freedoms that are worth fighting for.

"What's happening substantively is worth fighting for and it's not going to go away just because [Biden] gave a nice speech," Megyn said.

"I will object. I will protect my family and what I think is right over Joe Biden's need for unity, which is false anyway. 'Unify behind my agenda' is not a real call for unity," she added.

Megyn said she believes the Left has reached too far and "awakened a sleeping giant" in reference to the silent majority who should speak up, speak out, and refuse to be silenced any longer.

Watch the video clip below to catch more of the conversation:

Because the content of this show is sure to set off the censors, the full episode is only be available on BlazeTV. Get $30 off a one-year subscription to BlazeTV with the code "GLENN." With BlazeTV, you get the unvarnished truth from the most pro-America network in the country, free from Big Tech and MSM censors.

As the Senate prepares for former President Trump's second impeachment trial, many are asking whether it's constitutional to try a president after leaving office. Alan Dershowitz, lawyer and host of the of "The Dershow," joined Glenn Beck on the radio program to talk about the legal battles Trump still faces.

Dershowitz said he believes the Senate doesn't have the authority to convict Trump, now that he's a private citizen again, and thus can't use impeachment to bar him from running for office again.

"The Constitution says the purpose of impeachment is to remove somebody. He [Trump] is out of office. There's nothing left to do.
It doesn't say you can impeach him to disqualify him for the future. It says, if you remove him you can then add disqualification, but you can't just impeach somebody to disqualify them," Dershowitz said.

"The Senate can't try ordinary citizens. So once you're an ordinary citizen, you get tried only in the courts, not in the Senate. So it's clearly unconstitutional," he added.

Dershowitz, who served on Trump's legal team during the first impeachment trial, also discussed whether he thinks Trump is legally (or even just ethically) responsible for the Capitol riot earlier this month, and whether those engaging in violence could be considered "domestic terrorists."

Watch the video below to catch more of the conversation:

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn's masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution and live the American dream.

A new, shocking CBS News poll shows that the majority of Americans believe they're facing a new enemy: other Americans.

More than two-thirds of poll respondents said they believe democracy in the U.S. is "threatened," and 54% said "other people in America" are the "biggest threat to the American way of life," rather than economic factors, viruses, natural disasters, or foreign actors.

Will it be possible to unite our nation with statistics like that? On "The Glenn Beck Radio Program," Glenn and Stu discussed the poll numbers and what they mean for our future.

Watch the video clip below:

.

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn's masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution and live the American dream.