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.


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: 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.


PAT: Thanks, Rand. Appreciate it.

RAND: All right. Thanks, guys.

Glenn Beck joined Fox News' Tucker Carlson on Thursday night to discuss Visa Inc.'s "horrifying" new plans to flag firearm sales by separately categorizing purchases at gun shops, a move that Glenn aptly described as "the next step in banning guns."

In what's been hailed as a major victory for gun control activists, Visa agreed to adopt the International Organization for Standardization's (ISO) new set of standards by creating a special merchant category code for gun and ammunition sales.

In his appearance on "Tucker Carlson Tonight," Glenn shared a letter written by Robert B. Thomson III, a senior vice president at Visa, showing that the credit card company initially pushed back on the ISO's new rules.

“We believe that asking payment networks to serve as a moral authority by deciding which legal goods can or cannot be purchased sets a dangerous precedent,” Thomson wrote in the letter to pro-gun-control lawmakers, including Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts.

Just days later, however, Visa had agreed to comply with the ISO's plan to establish a new merchant category code for gun stores. So why did Visa suddenly flip?

As Glenn explained, it all comes down to pressure from America's largest union-owned bank, the Amalgamated Bank, one of the only unionized banks in the United States and a proud proponent of ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) investing.

"This is the next step in banning guns," Glenn asserted.

"It's horrifying!" Tucker responded after several seconds of stunned silence.

"I'm so grateful you did the reporting on this," he told Glenn. "I'm not sure why it falls to you since we have a couple of very large daily newspapers in this country you'd think would want to report this, yet none of them did. So, Glenn Beck did."

On a recent episode of "The Glenn Beck Program," Glenn broke down the details of this latest attack on the Second Amendment and revealed how this is a step toward something even worse than federal gun registration. Watch the video clip below for more details. Can't watch? Download the podcast here.

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.

Glenn Beck: Here's why Stacey Abrams' fetal heartbeat remarks are hilarious but TERRIFYING

(Left) Image source: video screenshot/ (right) Photo by Marcus Ingram/Getty Images

Georgia Democratic gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams has a new pro-abortion conspiracy theory: "There is no such thing as a [fetal] heartbeat at six weeks ... it is a manufactured sound designed to convince people that men have a right to take control of a woman’s body."

On the radio program Thursday, Glenn Beck and producer Stu Burguiere agreed Abrams' latest "misinformation" is not just ridiculous but could be dangerous if people are actually willing to believe her.

"If you want to defend abortion, go ahead and defend it. Defend what you're actually doing. Stop denying what is reality," Stu said. "If this is such a great defensible policy, then just come out and defend it, but they never can ... you notice how they can't go to the actual thing they say is so important. They keep defending these other things that aren't true."

Glenn said the pro-choice movement was successful for a long time because most people want the decision to be up to the woman and her doctor and that abortion should be safe, legal, and rare. But when leftists began "celebrating" their abortions or calling for "abortion on demand" at any point in the pregnancy, that's when they start to lose support.

"Because they've celebrated abortion and are losing regular people, you can't put that genie back in the bottle. So, what do they have to do now? They have to take the insane step of discrediting medical machines and technology," Glenn said.

"This is after two years, by the way, of them claiming the biggest scandal in the world was people suggesting the voting machines were hacked — after they previously said that voting machines were hacked in elections they [Democrats] lost," Stu pointed out.

"Honestly, gang, think this through because this is where life gets very scary. This is where you go to authoritarian rule and you can kill millions of people because you're truly now discrediting things that everyone knows is true," Glenn warned.

"So, if you disagree ... you can say that is an evil magic box that has made up sounds in it to convince people. If they will buy that, you're at the Salem witch trials. 'If she doesn't float, she wasn't a witch.' That's what you're looking at right now — and what's frightening is, [Abrams] can say this with a straight face and no one discredits her," he continued.

"You don't think that they can convince those people that you are a terrorist because of the way you vote? [...] You don't think they can convince half the country that you should be eliminated, liquidated, put into a camp, whatever authoritarians love to do? ... We are headed towards dangerous, dangerous times. We better wake up and stand together because this is frightening — it's hilarious — but because people are taking it seriously, it is terrifying," Glenn added.

Watch the video clip below to hear more from Glenn. Can't watch? Download the podcast here.

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 big question Glenn Beck has always had about “The Amazing Do-Over” is: How do you get the most powerful and wealthy nation that has ever existed to accept, “You will own nothing … and be happy”? A foundational principle of this country from its very inception has been land ownership. We worked hard, were fiscally responsible, and stayed away from high debt, but the progressive era began to erode all of that.

The Clinton Global Initiative recently gathered the ruling class to tell the plebes how to run their finances and called anyone who dared challenge their ideas “climate change deniers.” Glenn argues we are dangerously far down the “Road to Serfdom” and exposes the progressive playbook to keep us in line. It’s a 600-year-old medieval model that’s been the plan all along.

We’re already feeling economic pain, and yet they’re playing “Game of Thrones” with our lives. Turning us into serfs is their ultimate goal. How do they finish the complete restructuring of the American financial system and our way of life?

On Wednesday night's "Glenn TV," Glenn connects it all on the chalkboard and details the solution to fighting back against the ruling elites.

Watch the full episode 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.

These days, it seems like everything is about politics, and comedy has been one of the biggest targets. Many comedians are walking on eggshells, but stand-up comedian and "Saturday Night Live" alum Jim Breuer isn't one of them.

Breuer joined Glenn on the latest episode of "The Glenn Beck Podcast" to talk about why he’d rather be funny than fearful and what inspired his hilarious comedy special, “Somebody Had to Say It," which has garnered almost 1.5 million views as of this writing.

Breuer made it clear that he does not consider himself to be political. "I'm not. I'm 100% not [political]," he told Glenn, before explaining how people started calling him political when he dared to ask questions about a certain shot that we're not allowed to mention, let alone question.

"When did medicine become political?" Breuer asked.

"What kind of price have you paid for being called political?" Glenn asked Breuer.

"To be dead honest with you, once COVID really kicked in, and ... once you realize we're not going to be here, that we're on borrowed time, and I do have God in my life ... you come to terms with reality on a deeper level. And when COVID kicked in, I said, 'You know what? All bets are off.' I already knew I wasn't in control. But now, not only am I not in control from the natural order of life, but now the puppet masters ... are in control," Breuer answered.

"It made me realize I don't have time to worry about what people think of me. I know where I'm at in life. I know where I'm at spiritually. I know where I'm at with my family," he added.

"That's tremendous power," Glenn said. "But it spooks the hell out of people."

"But it shouldn't!" Breuer exclaimed. "I'm excited that other people get this ... but they're stuck. We ain't got time for stuck. To me, this is the time of, 'You gotta rise.' For years and years and years, you allow fear to control your life. Fear of dying. Fear I might get sick ... everything's based out of fear. It's time for the fearless."

Breuer also revealed his secret for dealing with tough times, and he’s seen his share. But he also said he's seen miracles, including the incredible (and hilariously told) story of how he found faith, how God saved his marriage, and why one family friend was convinced his wife belonged to a cult.

Watch the full episode of "The Glenn Beck Podcast" 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.