Rand Paul Is Still Recovering From Neighbor’s Attack: ‘There Will Be Legal Consequences’

January 12, 2018

WRITER

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) shared an update on today’s show about his recovery process after being assaulted by a neighbor in his own yard.

“I’m starting to get better every day,” Paul said. He suffered six broken ribs in the attack, describing on today’s show how it still hurts to sit up.

Rand Paul Is Back After Assault – Here’s What He Says Is ‘Weird’ About Neighbor’s Attack

Rene Albert Boucher, who has been Paul’s neighbor for 17 years, allegedly attacked Paul by jumping him from behind and knocking him to the ground. He has pleaded not guilty to misdemeanor assault charges.

“I think in the end there will be legal consequences,” Paul told Glenn on today’s show.

“The machinery of justice sometimes is slow, but I think in the end, there will be a just outcome and some punishment for this.”

This article provided courtesy of TheBlaze.

GLENN: Senator Rand Paul is joining us right now, a friend of the program, or we're a friend of his, at least. And glad to have him on, and glad to hear that he is able to continue to do work and to be on the phone with us.

Rand, we've been really concerned. This audience has been very concerned about your health. How are you feeling?

RAND: You know, I'm starting to get better every day, and I appreciate that. And I appreciate really -- [indistinct] -- across the country being concerned about my health.

GLENN: You know, I've only had a bruised rib. What, do you have three broken ribs?

RAND: Actually had six broken ribs. Three of them, three of them displaced. Meaning that I --

GLENN: Oh, my gosh.

RAND: -- not really aligned anymore. Fluid on the lung, I had pneumonia twice, and, you know, five or six weeks just to really excruciating pain trying to even sit up. I had to have assistance just to sit up.

GLENN: So, Senator, this has been bothering me. Since this story broke, first it was like, no big deal. Then it was like, oh, maybe a little bit, and then the details started to trickle out.

Why -- what happened with the media where we weren't getting the story? It was -- I mean, did you not know you had those broken ribs right away?

RAND: I think the media was obsessed with sort of trying to make it my fault somehow.

So the major liberal rag in Kentucky, the Louisville Courier, presented stories that Rand Paul is apparently not a good neighbor or sort of had it coming, deserved what he got. And it's really kind of stuff that the left -- [indistinct] -- for victims, until the victims happen to be conservatives.

GLENN: I've never seen -- I've never seen anything like it, and I don't know why this guy -- I don't care -- I mean, I do care if you're a Senator. To me it makes it much, much worse, especially if it was politically motivated. I don't care if you were a guy living on the street. That's a major attack! Why isn't this guy having major legal problems?

RAND: I think in the end there will be legal consequences. The machinery of justice sometimes is slow, but I think in the end it will be a just outcome, and some punishment for this.

But I guess the thing is, and I don't know if you remember, but about a month ago my wife finally just had enough, and she said, I can't stand -- [indistinct].

GLENN: I'm sorry. Your phone is kind of weird. You said she said what?

RAND: She just couldn't stand them attacking me every day. I got mugged once in the yard and then I got mugged by the media every day implying somehow that I sort of had it coming and that violence was justified. I guess they don't realize that it is -- [indistinct] -- think it's kind of funny, but I was on the ball field being shot at by a gunshot, over 100 shots at us, almost killed Steve Scalise, and I was attacked in my yard. And it's not that funny.

GLENN: I cannot believe -- we were on the air. If this would have happened to anyone on the left, the country would have stopped.

And the media just kind of took it like, yeah, well, it was a lawn mower thing.

No, it's not! And even if it was, there's a problem here!

Anyway, yesterday the President tweeted that the FISA thing that was going through the House was the -- the kind of stuff used with the -- he said, bogus dossier from Fusion GPS to surveil him and spy on him, and it was horrible. Two hours later he says, well, I put the right language in there, so it's all good and it's patriotic and you can do this. Let get smart.

I think this is a nightmare.

RAND: Yeah, the people in the swamp I think try to convince the President. The swamp is kind of pushing back. Paul Ryan and others, they push back and say well, we're putting reforms there and all the problems where people abuse the system, to go after -- [indistinct] and their mistress, and Bruce Orr, we fixed that, and it isn't at all. They did fake reform. There really isn't going to be a warrant requirement. So here's this program. It's supposed to be collecting information on foreigners and foreign lands. And I agree with that. Mike Lee and I are the two biggest advocates for getting a warrant, and both of us said we're fine with the program as long as the millions of Americans who are caught up accidentally in this program, those in the database, as long as you don't go trolling through the database looking for IRS problems or looking for campaign, you know, finance problems or looking for just people you don't like because they're the opposite party, and that stuff happens.

Senator Lee mentioned this the other day. He said, since FDR every President has used the intelligence against their opponents, all the way through Nixon. And Obama did it to attack the Tea Party, and they're still doing it now but not at Trump's behest. It's to attack Trump.

GLENN: So is there a chance that you and Mike Lee and I understand there's some, you know, good Democrats that are talking about joining you guys. Is there a chance this doesn't pass in the Senate?

RAND: We had the initial vote and we had four Republicans and 23 Democrats. The Republicans are Mike Lee, myself, Jerry Moran, and Steve Daines. These are the only four Republicans that have shown any interest in trying to stop this.

So to us, the American people, if we asked your audience, I know what kind of answer we'll get. But lets just say we ask everybody, out there listening to public radio we say, do you think that the government should be able to look at your personal information, listen to your phone calls, without a warrant? It would be a hell no from everybody. 80% of the public. But in Washington? The 80% of the public, they just don't listen to us.

In fact, when they hear that, they do what is very common in Washington, they did fake reform. They do some stuff -- [indistinct] -- fix the problem. In realty, this bill is worse than the current law. You should this bill, they say that data that is collected on foreigners that accidentally gets Americans can be used against Americans in a court of law. So imagine this. Imagine they just feel like they can go through there, and they -- [indistinct] -- office you brought home and painted your house, this would be a tax violation because you deducted the paint for the business. All of a sudden, they can -- it can be used in court now. That's what this law says. And I think it is worth filibustering. The Bill of Rights, the fourth Amendment, your right to privacy, so sacred and important, and it's what John Adams said it was the spark that led to the revolutionary was James Otis fighting against General Lawrence --

GLENN: Yep. I will tell you this. That I think -- I've been asking for a while, E Pluribus Unum. What's our unum anymore? It's really is the Bill of Rights. Those common sense things that you ask yourself, you know, should the government be able to just spy on you and listen to your phone calls? The unum is, no. We all agree. I don't care if you're Republican, Democrat, independent, left, right. 90% of Americans would say, no, they don't have a right to do that that's our unum. And we've taken our unum, our Bill of Rights, and we're just dismantling it, to have a group of Republicans and Democrats stand up in the Senate and filibuster on that right, on that unum, I think we'll connect.

RAND: And here's the good way to look at it, a lot of people get sort of -- they get caught up in this, and they're not sure which way to think, because they think, I know my local policeman and FBI agent, and they're good people. I would say exactly the same thing. Every individual nonagent I've met out in the field has been a good person that I think tries to apply the law. The local FBI agents and the local police understand the Fourth Amendment much better than Washington. But what should scare us all, we see Strzok, his girlfriend's -- mistress talking to somebody named Andy, which is probably the second in command at the FBI and plotting at work, their work phone, on how to stop Donald Trump being President and then talk about some kind of insurance policy. And then you flip over the Department of Justice, and the Bruce Orr's wife works for the opposition research that hired a British spy that is paid for by Hillary Clinton and all of a sudden we're supposed to believe that all these people are angels and they're not going to spy on us, if we don't have extra scrutiny on what they do?

GLENN: [Sighs] There are so many distractions now, that it's hard to concentrate on the important things. We had another one yesterday. A lot of people said what the President was doing two days ago when he was sitting down with members of Congress and saying I trust you guys to come up with a plan, a lot of people who supported him said he's just playing Congress and he's playing the media and he's going to play, you know, good cop. Well, he just flushed all that down the toilet last night with the comments being released, you know, why do we let all these people in here from craphole countries. I personally am just disgusted by that.

Any comment on that, Senator?

RAND: Not that in particular. But I would say that I think something is going to come out of this. And I've always blamed -- [indistinct] immigration, when it's border security or figuring out who can come to the country. And the Democrat's unwillingness to compromise. Right now there's a bunch of kids, and I do have symptom for the DACA kids, and I -- [indistinct] compromise. The democracy -- [indistinct] they're going to have to vote in favor of having a more merit based where we admit the people to the country who need, want, and will work. And then we -- I think the chain migration is going to --

GLENN: You know, that is the defenders of Donald Trump on the craphole country thing, which I'm sorry I don't buy into any of the discussions, but what we'll say, we need to know if these people are any good because they come from a craphole country. You can come from Denmark and still not want to work and still want things for free. Denmark is giving away things for free much more than Haiti.

RAND: -- justify that --

GLENN: -- no, no.

RAND: Can't have all 700 million. And here's the thing about merit based. We need people who are -- [indistinct] -- years and EMT -- workers. If we had no immigration into our country, if some of the people want to close the borders, we have no tomatoes, we had no vegetables, we have all of the things that have to be picked in the field. Unfortunately, we have destroyed the work ethic in our country. And the people who are --

GLENN: Yes --

RAND: -- for nonwork, but our country would come to a standstill without allowing some immigration. It can be a strength. It needs to be done legally and appropriately. I'm more for legal immigration and less illegal immigration.

GLENN: I agree with you on that, and I want to point out that I think what you were saying was, that the Democrats will have to compromise on merit base, which every country on the planet does, except for us.

And do you think that they will actually go and look -- I mean, we need -- we need AI visas. We need a Manhattan project, quite honestly, for safe ASI. We need the greatest minds to come here so we can develop that and it's not developed over in China or elsewhere. But that requires merit-based stuff. Would the Democrat ever do it?

RAND: I think part of merit-based applies, and one of the things that we need to do that we used to do, we should link it to work and sponsorship. When my wife's grandmother came over here from Ireland in the 1920s, she came over, and -- [indistinct] -- she was required to work. And if she didn't work she was sent back. We had some tough rules, but people knew they wanted to come, and people did. They were hungry for work. And hard work at the lower wage was better than the other country, but there's a hope of progress, a hope of success and moving up the socioeconomic ladder.

GLENN: Senator Rand Paul from Kentucky. We're glad you're feeling better. If there's anything that any of us can do to help you, let us know, besides our prayers. We appreciate the hard work you're doing, and thanks for joining us. God bless.

RAND: Thanks, Glenn.

GLENN: By the way, just want to point out, he said his grandmother, in the 1920s came from Ireland. At that time, many said Ireland was a craphole country, and why are we letting those people in?

Well, because some of them turn out to be really good Constitutional Senators.

'Rage against the dying of the light': Charlie Kirk lived that mandate

PHILL MAGAKOE / Contributor | Getty Images

Kirk’s tragic death challenges us to rise above fear and anger, to rebuild bridges where others build walls, and to fight for the America he believed in.

I’ve only felt this weight once before. It was 2001, just as my radio show was about to begin. The World Trade Center fell, and I was called to speak immediately. I spent the day and night by my bedside, praying for words that could meet the moment.

Yesterday, I found myself in the same position. September 11, 2025. The assassination of Charlie Kirk. A friend. A warrior for truth.

Out of this tragedy, the tyrant dies, but the martyr’s influence begins.

Moments like this make words feel inadequate. Yet sometimes, words from another time speak directly to our own. In 1947, Dylan Thomas, watching his father slip toward death, penned lines that now resonate far beyond his own grief:

Do not go gentle into that good night. / Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Thomas was pleading for his father to resist the impending darkness of death. But those words have become a mandate for all of us: Do not surrender. Do not bow to shadows. Even when the battle feels unwinnable.

Charlie Kirk lived that mandate. He knew the cost of speaking unpopular truths. He knew the fury of those who sought to silence him. And yet he pressed on. In his life, he embodied a defiance rooted not in anger, but in principle.

Picking up his torch

Washington, Jefferson, Adams — our history was started by men who raged against an empire, knowing the gallows might await. Lincoln raged against slavery. Martin Luther King Jr. raged against segregation. Every generation faces a call to resist surrender.

It is our turn. Charlie’s violent death feels like a knockout punch. Yet if his life meant anything, it means this: Silence in the face of darkness is not an option.

He did not go gently. He spoke. He challenged. He stood. And now, the mantle falls to us. To me. To you. To every American.

We cannot drift into the shadows. We cannot sit quietly while freedom fades. This is our moment to rage — not with hatred, not with vengeance, but with courage. Rage against lies, against apathy, against the despair that tells us to do nothing. Because there is always something you can do.

Even small acts — defiance, faith, kindness — are light in the darkness. Reaching out to those who mourn. Speaking truth in a world drowning in deceit. These are the flames that hold back the night. Charlie carried that torch. He laid it down yesterday. It is ours to pick up.

The light may dim, but it always does before dawn. Commit today: I will not sleep as freedom fades. I will not retreat as darkness encroaches. I will not be silent as evil forces claim dominion. I have no king but Christ. And I know whom I serve, as did Charlie.

Two turning points, decades apart

On Wednesday, the world changed again. Two tragedies, separated by decades, bound by the same question: Who are we? Is this worth saving? What kind of people will we choose to be?

Imagine a world where more of us choose to be peacemakers. Not passive, not silent, but builders of bridges where others erect walls. Respect and listening transform even the bitterest of foes. Charlie Kirk embodied this principle.

He did not strike the weak; he challenged the powerful. He reached across divides of politics, culture, and faith. He changed hearts. He sparked healing. And healing is what our nation needs.

At the center of all this is one truth: Every person is a child of God, deserving of dignity. Change will not happen in Washington or on social media. It begins at home, where loneliness and isolation threaten our souls. Family is the antidote. Imperfect, yes — but still the strongest source of stability and meaning.

Mark Wilson / Staff | Getty Images

Forgiveness, fidelity, faithfulness, and honor are not dusty words. They are the foundation of civilization. Strong families produce strong citizens. And today, Charlie’s family mourns. They must become our family too. We must stand as guardians of his legacy, shining examples of the courage he lived by.

A time for courage

I knew Charlie. I know how he would want us to respond: Multiply his courage. Out of this tragedy, the tyrant dies, but the martyr’s influence begins. Out of darkness, great and glorious things will sprout — but we must be worthy of them.

Charlie Kirk lived defiantly. He stood in truth. He changed the world. And now, his torch is in our hands. Rage, not in violence, but in unwavering pursuit of truth and goodness. Rage against the dying of the light.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Glenn Beck resurrects the 9-12 Project to support Charlie Kirk's family

Glenn Beck is once again calling on his loyal listeners and viewers to come together and channel the same unity and purpose that defined the historic 9-12 Project. That movement, born in the wake of national challenges, brought millions together to revive core values of faith, hope, and charity.

Glenn created the original 9-12 Project in early 2009 to bring Americans back to where they were in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. In those moments, we weren't Democrats and Republicans, conservative or liberal, Red States or Blue States, we were united as one, as America. The original 9-12 Project aimed to root America back in the founding principles of this country that united us during those darkest of days.

This new initiative draws directly from that legacy, focusing on supporting the family of Charlie Kirk in these dark days following his tragic murder.

The revival of the 9-12 Project aims to secure the long-term well-being of Charlie Kirk's wife and children. All donations will go straight to meeting their immediate and future needs. If the family deems the funds surplus to their requirements, Charlie's wife has the option to redirect them toward the vital work of Turning Point USA.

This campaign is more than just financial support—it's a profound gesture of appreciation for Kirk's tireless dedication to the cause of liberty. It embodies the unbreakable bond of our community, proving that when we stand united, we can make a real difference.
Glenn Beck invites you to join this effort. Show your solidarity by donating today and honoring Charlie Kirk and his family in this meaningful way.

You can learn more about the 9-12 Project and donate HERE

The critical difference: Rights from the Creator, not the state

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

When politicians claim that rights flow from the state, they pave the way for tyranny.

Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) recently delivered a lecture that should alarm every American. During a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing, he argued that believing rights come from a Creator rather than government is the same belief held by Iran’s theocratic regime.

Kaine claimed that the principles underpinning Iran’s dictatorship — the same regime that persecutes Sunnis, Jews, Christians, and other minorities — are also the principles enshrined in our Declaration of Independence.

In America, rights belong to the individual. In Iran, rights serve the state.

That claim exposes either a profound misunderstanding or a reckless indifference to America’s founding. Rights do not come from government. They never did. They come from the Creator, as the Declaration of Independence proclaims without qualification. Jefferson didn’t hedge. Rights are unalienable — built into every human being.

This foundation stands worlds apart from Iran. Its leaders invoke God but grant rights only through clerical interpretation. Freedom of speech, property, religion, and even life itself depend on obedience to the ruling clerics. Step outside their dictates, and those so-called rights vanish.

This is not a trivial difference. It is the essence of liberty versus tyranny. In America, rights belong to the individual. The government’s role is to secure them, not define them. In Iran, rights serve the state. They empower rulers, not the people.

From Muhammad to Marx

The same confusion applies to Marxist regimes. The Soviet Union’s constitutions promised citizens rights — work, health care, education, freedom of speech — but always with fine print. If you spoke out against the party, those rights evaporated. If you practiced religion openly, you were charged with treason. Property and voting were allowed as long as they were filtered and controlled by the state — and could be revoked at any moment. Rights were conditional, granted through obedience.

Kaine seems to be advocating a similar approach — whether consciously or not. By claiming that natural rights are somehow comparable to sharia law, he ignores the critical distinction between inherent rights and conditional privileges. He dismisses the very principle that made America a beacon of freedom.

Jefferson and the founders understood this clearly. “We are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights,” they wrote. No government, no cleric, no king can revoke them. They exist by virtue of humanity itself. The government exists to protect them, not ration them.

This is not a theological quibble. It is the entire basis of our government. Confuse the source of rights, and tyranny hides behind piety or ideology. The people are disempowered. Clerics, bureaucrats, or politicians become arbiters of what rights citizens may enjoy.

John Greim / Contributor | Getty Images

Gifts from God, not the state

Kaine’s statement reflects either a profound ignorance of this principle or an ideological bias that favors state power over individual liberty. Either way, Americans must recognize the danger. Understanding the origin of rights is not academic — it is the difference between freedom and submission, between the American experiment and theocratic or totalitarian rule.

Rights are not gifts from the state. They are gifts from God, secured by reason, protected by law, and defended by the people. Every American must understand this. Because when rights come from government instead of the Creator, freedom disappears.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

POLL: Is Gen Z’s anger over housing driving them toward socialism?

NurPhoto / Contributor | Getty Images

A recent poll conducted by Justin Haskins, a long-time friend of the show, has uncovered alarming trends among young Americans aged 18-39, revealing a generation grappling with deep frustrations over economic hardships, housing affordability, and a perceived rigged system that favors the wealthy, corporations, and older generations. While nearly half of these likely voters approve of President Trump, seeing him as an anti-establishment figure, over 70% support nationalizing major industries, such as healthcare, energy, and big tech, to promote "equity." Shockingly, 53% want a democratic socialist to win the 2028 presidential election, including a third of Trump voters and conservatives in this age group. Many cite skyrocketing housing costs, unfair taxation on the middle class, and a sense of being "stuck" or in crisis as driving forces, with 62% believing the economy is tilted against them and 55% backing laws to confiscate "excess wealth" like second homes or luxury items to help first-time buyers.

This blend of Trump support and socialist leanings suggests a volatile mix: admiration for disruptors who challenge the status quo, coupled with a desire for radical redistribution to address personal struggles. Yet, it raises profound questions about the roots of this discontent—Is it a failure of education on history's lessons about socialism's failures? Media indoctrination? Or genuine systemic barriers? And what does it portend for the nation’s trajectory—greater division, a shift toward authoritarian policies, or an opportunity for renewal through timeless values like hard work and individual responsibility?

Glenn wants to know what YOU think: Where do Gen Z's socialist sympathies come from? What does it mean for the future of America? Make your voice heard in the poll below:

Do you believe the Gen Z support for socialism comes from perceived economic frustrations like unaffordable housing and a rigged system favoring the wealthy and corporations?

Do you believe the Gen Z support for socialism, including many Trump supporters, is due to a lack of education about the historical failures of socialist systems?

Do you think that these poll results indicate a growing generational divide that could lead to more political instability and authoritarian tendencies in America's future?

Do you think that this poll implies that America's long-term stability relies on older generations teaching Gen Z and younger to prioritize self-reliance, free-market ideals, and personal accountability?

Glenn's Show Prep