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.

POLL: What DARK government secrets will Trump uncover?

Mark Wilson / Staff | Getty Images

Will the dark secrets of the Deep State finally see the light of day? Or will they slip back into darkness, as they have many times before?

The Trump administration is gearing up to fulfill one of Trump's most anticipated campaign promises: to make the contents of the JFK files, along with other Deep State secrets, available to the public. Kash Patel, who has promised to publicize the highly anticipated files, is expected to be confirmed next week as Trump's director of the FBI. Moreover, the House Oversight Committee created a new task force headed by Rep. Anna Paulina Luna called "Task Force on Declassification of Federal Secrets," which is tasked with investigating and declassifying information on the JFK, RFK, and MLK assassinations, UFOs, the Epstein list, COVID's origins, and 9/11. This all comes after the FBI found 2,400 "new" records relating to the assassination of President Kennedy following Trump's executive order to release the files.

Glenn discussed this topic with the cast of the Patrick Bet David podcast. Glenn expressed his confidence in Trump's radical transparency—on the condition that Kash Patel is confirmed. The cast was not as optimistic, expressing some doubt about whether Trump will actually unveil all that he has promised. But what do you think? What files are likely to see the light of day? And what files will continue to linger in the dark? Let us know in the poll below

Do you think the JFK, RFK, and MLK files will be unveiled?

Do you think the 9/11 files will be unveiled?

Do you think the COVID files will be unveiled?

Do you think the UFO files will be unveiled?

Do you think the Epstein list will be unveiled?

Transgender opera in Colombia? 10 SHOCKING ways USAID spent your tax dollars.

MANDEL NGAN / Contributor | Getty Images

The government has been doing what with our tax money!?

Under the determined eye of Elon Musk, DOGE has rooted out the corruption that permeates USAID, and it turns out that it's worse than we thought. Glenn recently read a list of atrocious causes that were funded by USAID, and the list was as long as it was shocking.

Since the January consumer index report was published today, one thing is clear: eggs are bearing the brunt of inflation. That's why we illustrated the extent of USAID's wasteful spending of YOUR taxpayer dollars by comparing it to the price of eggs. How many eggs could the American people have bought with their tax dollars that were given to a "transgender opera" in Colombia or indoctrinating Sri Lankans with woke gender ideology? The truth will shock you:

1. A “transgender opera” in Colombia

USAID spent $47,000 on a transgender opera in Colombia. That's over 135,000 eggs.

2. Sex changes and "LGBT activism" in Guatemala

$2 million was spent funding sex changes along with whatever "LGBT activism" means. That equates to over 5.7 million eggs!

3. Teaching Sri Lankan journalists how to avoid binary-gendered language

USAID forked over $7.9 million to combat the "gender binary" in Sri Lankan journalism. That could have bought nearly 23 million eggs.

4. Tourism in Egypt

$6 million (or just over 17 million eggs) was spent to fund tourism in Egypt. If only someone had thought to build some impressive landmarks...

5. A new "Sesame Street" show in Iraq

USAID spent $20 million to create a new Sesame Street show in Iraq. That's just short of 58 million eggs...

6. Helping the BBC value the diversity of Libyan society

$2.1 million was sent to the BBC (the British Broadcasting Corporation) to help them value the diversity of Libyan society (whatever that means). That could have bought over 6 million eggs.

7. Meals for a terrorist group linked to Al-Qaeda

$10 million worth of USAID-funded meals went to an Al-Qaeda linked terrorist group. That comes up to be just shy of 29 million eggs.

8. Promoting inclusion in Vietnam 

A combined $19.3 million was sent to two separate inclusion groups in Vietnam inclusion groups in Vietnam (why where they separated? Not very inclusive of them). That's over 55 million eggs.

9. Promoting DEI in Serbia's workplaces

USAID sent $1.5 million (4.3 million eggs) to “advance diversity equity and inclusion in Serbia’s workplaces and business communities.”

10. Funding EcoHealth Alliance, tied to the Wuhan Institute of Virology's "bat research"

EcoHealth Alliance, one of the key NGOs that funded the Wuhan lab's bat virus research, received $5 million from USAID, which is equivalent to 14.5 million eggs.

The bottom line...

So, how much damage was done?

In total, approximately $73.8 million was wasted on the items on this list. That comes out to be 213 million eggs. Keep in mind that these are just the items on this list, there are many, many more that DOGE has uncovered and will uncover in the coming days. Case in point: that's a lot of eggs.

POLL: Should Trump stop producing pennies?

SAUL LOEB / Contributor, Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

On Sunday, February 9th, President Trump ordered the U.S. Mint to halt the production of pennies. It costs the mint three cents to produce every penny, which Trump deemed wasteful. However, critics argue that axing the pennies will be compensated by ramping up nickel production, which costs 13 cents per coin.

In other news, President Trump promised on Truth Social that he would be reversing a Biden-era policy that mandated the use of paper straws throughout the federal government. From potentially slashing entire agencies to saying farewell to pennies and paper straws, Trump is hounding after wasteful spending of taxpayer dollars.

But what do you think? Was Trump right to put an end to pennies? And should plastic straws make a comeback? Let us know in the poll below:

Should Trump stop the production of pennies? 

Do you agree with Trump's reversal of the plastic straw ban?

Was this the most PATRIOTIC Super Bowl yet?

CHANDAN KHANNA / Contributor | Getty Images

The 2025 Super Bowl demonstrated Trump’s vision of a new America.

On Sunday, February 9th, the Philadelphia Eagles defeated the Kansas City Chiefs in the biggest sporting event of the year. But this wasn't just a victory for Eagles fans. For those watching, it became apparent that American culture has changed, the zeitgeist has shifted, and America has become cool again. While remnants of woke culture lingered, they felt out of step next to the parade of American Flags and patriotic messaging that dominated the national event. The message was clear: America is back.

Everybody knows that the commercials are the best part of any Super Bowl, and last night's game was no exception. As Glenn has pointed out, while some of the ads still carried woke messages (like Nike's), many more captured the newly kindled patriotism felt nationwide. Here are four of the best commercials from last Sunday that make this the most patriotic Super Bowl yet:

1. Rocket: "Own the Dream"

This touching commercial by the financial services company, Rocket, states "Everyone deserves a shot at the American dream," while showing images of people returning home and building families. The ad included a cover of John Denver's iconic song "Take Me Home, Country Roads" and featured an in-stadium sing-along, live from the Super Bowl.

2. Secret Service: "A History of Protection"

Donald Trump made history by being the first sitting president to attend a Super Bowl, which required the efforts of hundreds of Secret Service agents to ensure his safety. The Secret Service boasted of this feat during their minute-long commercial, which lauded American values and achievements and featured iconic American imagery.

3. Brad Pitt: "Huddle Up"

The Super Bowl introduction celebrated snapshots of American achievement accompanied with a powerful commentary about unity narrated by Brad Pitt. The message is clear: Americans can achieve great things when we work together. The ad conjures up American ideals such as hard work, ingenuity, self-sacrifice, and teamwork.

4. Jeep: "Big Game"

Movie star Harrison Ford appeared in Jeep's Super Bowl commercial to promote freedom and to remind us that "freedom isn't free." Ford treks through the mountains while ruminating on what freedom means in America and the opportunities and responsibilities that come with it.