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.

President Trump has given us great judges on the lower court, 3 judges far superior than Roberts and other bogus constitutionalists as SCOTUS and one just may turn out to be another Clarence Thomas. He kicked the ass of ISIS and came home.

He got us out of the disastrous Iran deal, killed their head of terror, boxed them in and is currently collapsing their economy while also brokering a Mid East peace deal that everyone said could never happen. He moved our embassy to Jerusalem despite the state department, something no president has done even though they all promised.

Yes, he met with the North Korean Dictator. I hated that, but I also hated the fact that no other president did anything and North Korea kept gaining power. He has gotten Europe to pay their share of NATO, brought the Arabs and the Jews together, while smashing the choke hold of the PLO, and stood up to the Chinese instead of selling them supercomputers (Clinton), accepting lead poison in dog food (Bush), or loving the CCP and taking millions in dirty money (Obama/Biden).

He also has defended religious liberty unlike any other president at least in the last 100 years, and is a true pro-life advocate that unlike most republicans backs it up with action instead of just talk.

President Trump has also opened doors that the GOP was too wussy to even try to open with Hispanics and Blacks. He again didn't pander. He instead cleared the dead wood and opened pathways up so they could get higher education, create jobs, and not get lost in the prison system.

He also has defended religious liberty... and is a true pro-life advocate.

President Trump also took on an economy that had been beaten down, a people who had been told "you didn't build that" and, in fact, Obama and Biden claimed that the economy was "as good as it would ever get," that we would never create jobs in sectors ever again.

President Trump gave us the lowest unemployment rate since 1969 (the year I celebrated my 5th birthday,) the lowest unemployment for Hispanics & Blacks ever, and the first real growth in pay that I can remember.

President Trump then responded to the largest pandemic in 100 years by doing a couple of things I have never seen a president do:

  1. America's biggest capitalist shuts down the entire economy and knowingly puts his re-election at risk in order to save people.
  2. Closes travel with China and Europe, only to be called “racist," "xenophobic" and accused of stirring hatred. Now everyone says they were for it, but he stood alone and took the heat.

When everyone bashed him because they thought he would seize control and become an authoritarian by telling states what to do, or taking control of companies and telling them what to produce, he simply asked the free market to step to the plate, because he trusts the people of this country to do the right thing. By not taking control, he was called a dictator and a Nazi. Meanwhile he has been blamed for the blood bath created by Gov. Cuomo's nursing home policies. They said 2 million would die, best case scenario 200,000 — if we did everything right. Gee, seems that we are now in the time period they told us would be phase two, it seems as though we seem to have hit that "best case scenario" at this point.

While all of this has gone on, President Trump has fought the lies that were started by Hillary Clinton's team to smear him as a Russian operative. It was enabled by the Obama White House and included the DOJ, CIA, Dept of State, FBI, and DNI. Did I leave anyone out? Oh, yeah we are now getting evidence that members of the Pentagon may have been involved as well. Not to mention the so-called "press" and Congress who did things that would embarrass not only "Frank Underwood" but also Kevin Spacey. He has single handedly exposed the press for who they are and have always been. Because of his tweets, personal style and frankly balls of steel, he has exposed those who truly are: "Enemies of the people." I hated that when he first said it, but it is true. Any person or group that knowingly lies to destroy our president, our Constitution and the free market, are not just enemies of the people, they are enemies of the freedom of all mankind.

As someone who didn't support President Trump at first (and that is putting it mildly) I remain honest enough to judge him on his entire record. He is perhaps the only man in America that can and has stood entirely alone, surrounded by enemies, surrounded by those who took an oath to protect and defend the Constitution, who are now actively engaged in destroying it and any elected president who stands in their way.

Personally, I have grown sick and tired of spineless, do nothing, old, corrupt GOP politicians who are either part of the problem or too frightened to stand alone and speak up. The vast majority are all "Sunshine Patriots." History will condemn those who did nothing but complain and whine, while others not only rang the bell, but stood and took the hits, who risked it all and lost money, reputation and perhaps, God forbid, some who gave the ultimate sacrifice to fight the evil that rages so clearly against the light.

100 years from now history will judge all of us. So will our children's children. Most will be forgotten. Those who failed to show up on the battlefield or cower in the trees, will be remembered with shame and disdain. Others like President Trump, I believe will be seen as indispensable.

DECODING the Democrats' EXTENSIVE ties to 'Big Tech'

Annie Spratt/Unsplash

The Democrats' ties to "Big Tech" and the entertainment industry have placed them in the perfect position to influence both public policy and our nation's culture. It's impossible to unweave the entire web of Democrat operatives and sleeper cells, but here are a few of the current ties between the Dems and an industry that arguably has more influence on our day-to-day lives than any other.

Twitter Executives

Jack Dorsey, CEO

Omid Kordestani, Director, Executive Chairman

Ned Segal, CFO

Evan Williams, Former Twitter CEO, Current Board Member

Bridget Coyne, Public Policy Director

  • In charge of government/election partnerships with leading global government and political publishers including content strategy for Twitter
  • Intern and Press Secretary for multiple Democrat politicians, plus Rachel Maddow Show

Nicholas Pacilio, Senior Communications Manager, former Communications Manager

Carlos Monje, former Director of Public Policy

Brandon Borrman, VP Global Communications


Mark Zuckerberg, CEO

Sheryl Sandberg, Chief Operating Officer

Andy Stone, Policy Communications Director

Anna Makanju, Global Policy Manager

Brian Rice, Director of Public Policy

Probir Mehta, Global Public Policy

Jessica Hertz, Former Director and Associate General Counsel

    When I first talked about all the problems with mail-in voting two months ago, I said the last thing we want to see is voting rules getting changed so close to an election. Yet, that is exactly what is happening right now across the nation.

    And in almost every case, Democrats are fighting to get rid of simple, common sense safeguards like requiring a witness signature, or requiring that a voter's signature on a mail-in ballot matches their signature on file. It's really an insane effort to change the rules in the middle of the game. And the effort is still going strong even though we're less than three weeks from Election Day.

    Remember how mail-in voting is supposed to save the Republic? If that doesn't sit well with you or make sense to you, you are not alone. Start the video below at the 2:04 mark and see what reassurances Abrams shares.

    "We must adapt to how we conduct our elections?!" That's practically been the Democrats' motto for 2020. Don't like the results you get from regular old-fashioned elections? Let's just create some new "norms" for voting. I mean it's been on their to-do list forever anyway and COVID is the perfect opportunity to finally get it done.

    So, how is that "adapting to new norms" thing going? Well, I'm glad I asked. Because it's the perfect time to welcome you to the inaugural Chaoscar Awards, recognizing achievements in mail-in voting chaos.

    For example, the "Every Vote Matters" Chaoscar award goes to Luzerne County, Pennsylvania where the FBI found nine discarded military ballots in a dumpster.

    The Letter from U.S. Attorney David Freed to the Luzerne County Bureau of Elections says:

    The FBI has recovered a number of documents relating to military ballots that had been improperly opened by your elections staff, and had the ballots removed and discarded…

    The FBI also found additional absentee ballot envelopes that were empty, so who knows where those ballots went.

    But wait, Stacey Abrams told us mail-in voting is safe and secure! Secure? Well, maybe not if you're in the military and sending your ballot to Luzerne County, Pennsylvania.

    The "It Takes Two to Tango" Chaoscar goes to Fairfax County, Virginia for mailing duplicate absentee ballots to 1,400 voters.

    But don't worry, election officials have it all under control. They say only one of the ballots will be counted — unless you're a Democrat. Okay, they didn't really say that, but they were probably thinking it. Officials blamed a printer problem and said people should destroy their duplicate ballot. Or, they could just send it to our next Chaoscar winner — Texas mayoral candidate Zul Mohamed.

    He was arrested last week on voter fraud charges after applying for 84 absentee ballots and having them sent to a P.O. box that allegedly belongs to a nursing home.

    Nice try.

    Next, the "You've Got No Mail" Chaoscar goes to Outagamie County, Wisconsin. Three trays of mail, which included multiple absentee ballots, were discovered in a ditch along a state highway.

    Does no one bury anything anymore? If you want to get rid of ballots, why are you using dumpsters and ditches?

    New York City wins the "G.I. Schmo" Chaoscar for sending voters mail-in ballots marked for military use.

    That's right, New Yorkers who have never served in the military have received the ballot, which says "Official Military Absentee Ballot."

    Maybe there was supposed to be a slash between the words "military" and "absentee," but voters are obviously confused and concerned about whether they're supposed to go ahead and use the ballot even though they're not in the military.

    Over 520,000 ballots have already been sent out and the New York Elections Board does not know how many of those have the error.

    The 'Every Vote Matters' Chaoscar goes to...

    We hop over to New Jersey for our next award — the "Dumpster Diver" Chaoscar goes to a mailman who has been arrested for allegedly tossing 1,875 of pieces of mail — including 99 election ballots — into a dumpster.

    What was that Stacey Abrams? I forgot...

    Next, New York City wins its second Chaoscar of the night — it's the "You Had One Job" award for sending out 140,000 absentee ballots to Brooklyn voters with the wrong names and addresses.

    These voters are supposed to complete their ballot and put it inside the official absentee ballot envelope, then sign the outside of the envelope and send it in. But these return envelopes have the wrong name and address, so voters cannot sign them unless they want their ballot to be voided.

    Many voters do not even have the right name on the ballot itself.

    And this is great — the New York Board of Elections says a "printing error" is responsible for the bad ballots. Wow — really, a printing error? Gee, how did they ever solve that mystery?

    One report on this said:

    It was unclear exactly how the city planned to handle voters who had already mailed their completed ballot back in the provided envelopes.

    That is a huge red flag, because it's exactly the kind of issue that will help fuel chaos and endless litigation all over America after Election Day.

    Next, the "I See Dead People Voting" Chaoscar goes to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts for its new temporary rules allowing dead people's votes to count.

    Before this year, Massachusetts allowed early voting to start ten days before the election. If you voted early and died before Election Day, sorry, your vote would not count.

    But Massachusetts changed the rules this year because of the pandemic. Now early voting starts 30 days before Election Day. And if you cast your vote during this early window, and then kick the bucket before November 3, you can rest in total peace knowing your vote will still count!

    America — land of opportunity, even after you're dead.

    Our final Chaoscar of the night is the "It's So Crazy It Just Might Work" special achievement award, which goes to Houston, Texas. This is for an alleged ballot harvesting and voter fraud operation that — if the allegations prove to be true — dwarfs any election-related fraud we've seen anywhere so far this year.

    Two private investigators — one a former FBI agent, the other a former Houston police captain — filed sworn affidavits with the Texas Supreme Court as part of a class-action lawsuit against Harris County.

    This is a copy of the lawsuit and I want to quote directly from it, so you understand what the specific allegations are:

    Licensed Private Investigators... have been investigating ballot harvesting in Harris County for many months...
    The organization and operation of the illegal harvesting program is being used to commit fraud in the November 3, 2020 election...

    According to the investigators, witnesses have identified Harris County Commissioner Rodney Ellis... and Texas State Senator Borris Miles as leading the organization tasked with harvesting ballots. The investigators further state that witnesses have identified Houston businessman Gerald Womack and political consultant Dallas Jones as lieutenants working directly under Commissioner Ellis and Senator Miles.

    By the way, in September, Dallas Jones was hired by the Joe Biden campaign to be its Texas Political Director.

    This is a copy of the affidavit from one of the private investigators, Mark Aguirre. He says:

    I have in my possession video-taped interviews of witnesses attesting to the aforementioned people having groups of people completing thousands of absentee and mail-in ballots, including completing ballots for deceased individuals; illegally going into nursing homes, with the complicity of the nursing home staff, and filling out and forging the signatures of nursing home residents; signing up homeless individuals to vote using the ballot harvester's address then completing the ballot and forging the homeless individual's signature.

    And this is from the affidavit of the second private investigator. He says:

    [One] witness stated to me that an employee of Commissioner Ellis, Tyler James, has bragged that he could guarantee that the illegal ballot harvesting operation, with the help of mass mail-in ballots, could harvest 700,000 illegal ballots.

    Democrats successfully created chaos and now they're working overtime to change voting rules across the nation, taking advantage of friendly courts and judges to legislate from the bench. It's all about election insurance, tweaking the state voting systems to make Joe Biden's path to victory easier, including — in many states — rigging the ballot.

    While Big Tech, the Democrats and the media insist mail-in voting is safe and secure, it's already going off the rails in many states and uncovers the left-wing forces behind the massive litigation war being waged by Democrats to permanently change the way you vote.

    Democrats are freaked out about Amy Coney Barrett joining the Supreme Court. But don't let their fretting fool you, because as Glenn Beck reveals, the Left is doing just fine in the federal and state courts. In fact, the Left is thriving.

    Tonight at 9 p.m. ET, 8 p.m. CT, Glenn shows how Democrats successfully created chaos with their massive push for mail-in voting. Now they're working overtime to change voting rules across the nation, taking advantage of friendly courts and judges to legislate from the bench. It's all about election insurance, tweaking the state voting systems to make Joe Biden's path to victory easier – including, in many states, rigging the ballot.

    While Big Tech, Democrats, and the media insist mail-in voting is trustworthy and there's nothing to see here, Glenn exposes how mail-in voting is already going off the rails in many states and uncovers the left-wing forces behind the massive litigation war being waged by Democrats to permanently change the way you vote.

    Because the content of this show is sure to set off the Big tech censors, the full episode will only be available on Blaze TV. Start your free trial to watch it tonight, and save $20 off a one-year subscription with code SAVEOURELECTION.

    Watch a preview of the show 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.