Rand Paul on The Real Cost of Intervention & Regime Change | PBD Podcast #730

When I think about Rand Paul, I think about the the tough guy, the guy that spoke on behalf of the American people. >> I think I naturally inherited the DNA, the sort of the leave me alone DNA. >> You were fearless during CO at a time that nobody wanted to confront Fouchi. >> That's why you're ignoring previous infection cuz it doesn't involve any of the guidelines. >> So, it assaults our sense of justice and our sense of any kind of uh right or wrong to say something that's not true. You cannot say anything to him because you have to trust science. God forbid if you do, you became a hero to millions of people around the world. But there isn't necessarily always a governmental answer. The way the world works is if you keep talking about what you believe in, the right people will find you and learn how to use you. >> Individualism is somewhat naturally uh cruise to certain people. We don't necess need a wall. What we need is a wall around the welfare system. And so you do you have to have rules. What is your opinion on what's what's happened in Minnesota? >> We have to cooperate. The local officials have to cooperate with the national officials. >> Would that not be considered war? How would we react to it? >> I don't like war. I think war is the last resort. I'll vote to declare war. When someone tell me it snatches our president, attacks us. So, it is an act of war. >> The special interests that are more concerned with their personal welfare than the general welfare. >> 30 seconds. Did you ever think you were made again? I still taste sweet. >> What's your point? The future looks bright. >> Handshake is better than anything I ever signed right here. >> You are a 101. I don't think I've ever said this before. >> Senator Ran Paul, how you doing? >> Very good. Thanks for having me. >> Yeah, you know, it's funny. One of my favorite conversations of all time was with your father. >> Yeah. And I looked at that just to preview to see if you how tough you were going to be. And I thought you were pretty fair with him and I thought you had a good conversation. >> No, it was phenomenal. We we we were in Houston and we went to I don't know what it was an office. We sat down. We talked. The stuff that he said was absolutely amazing. But how much influence did he have on you? Of course he did. I mean philosophy, all that stuff. But how big of an influence did it have on your life? >> You know, people always have this debate on what you become. Is it nature? Is it nurture kind of thing? And in my case, probably a little bit of both. I think I naturally inherited the DNA, the sort of the leave me alone DNA. You know, I don't need big brother. I can make my own decisions. Individualism is somewhat naturally accused to certain people. But I think also nurture. I mean, I was around it as as a young kid. I can remember laying on the floor the old shag rugs of 1970s and listening to MD radio in um Missoula, Montana, you know, Idaho, you know, all these different radio stations. In those days, there wasn't the internet and podcasts, but there were there was an under there was sort of a network under the undercurrent network of small AM radio and he'd do these talk radios all over the country and I would listen to at least half of his those and probably lots hundreds and hundreds of his speeches and then I read a lot of the books that uh had influenced him as well. >> Yeah. you know the the one thing that was most profound thing he told me he says you know he was going to listen to this economist that's talking about capitalism or you know and then he says eventually I came back I'm like what am I doing I'm a doctor what do I do with this information so he said I went back to the guy and I said I'm obsessed I can't stop consuming this information about economy all this stuff he says what do I do with it he says the way the world works is if you keep talking about what you believe in the right people will find you and learn how to use you profound found. He says, "Don't just keep your head down. Keep talking about it, right? People will find you." Was fascinating. Do Do you remember when your dad was on Morton Downey Jr.? Do you remember that one clip? I don't even think people remember Morton Downey Jr. >> Yeah, that one's kind of hard to forget. It it's sort of cringy because you don't like to see your your dad or one of your family in a u and some of us don't like that sort of that cont you know that back and forth that yelling and stuff but he gave what he what he could and uh he talked basically about all these people who want to you know we don't want you let you smoke marijuana but he said yeah you can eat all the donuts you want right so I mean which is killing more people marijuana or obesity I think to this day probably sugar drinks are more dangerous than marijuana And by the way, you know, the guy telling him about marijuana smoked three packs a day and I don't know what age he died. He died in his late 50s or anything from that. Yeah. So, it's a it's interesting. So, but coming back to you, when I think about Rand Paul, uh I think about the the tough guy, the guy that spoke on behalf of the American people. Uh you were fearless during CO at a time that nobody wanted to confront Fouchi. That was like the you cannot say anything to him because you have to trust science. God forbid if you do, you became a hero uh to millions of people around the world. And then the more and more you look into the story, you're like, but let me find out a little bit more about this guy. Is it true as a senator you would do proono surgery on people's eyes while you're in the Senate? >> Yeah, I've met a couple different trips. I uh went down to Guatemala and we did about 200 250 cataract surgeries. I would go with a group from the University of Utah and uh when I became interested in this I said well I'll just organize my own trip and I looked into it there's a lot that goes into organizing so I became part of this team from the University of uh Utah and we went to Guatemala we went to Haiti >> in Guatemala or part of Guatemala >> um it was uh we were went up from uh Antigua uh I'm trying to remember Salama Salama >> yeah it was about an hour or two north of the Guatemala city and Antigua and it was up in the mountains. I remember because when you drive these windy mountain roads which sometimes had precipitous drops, the way they marked uh places in the road where the road had fallen away was stones. So they put stones around the the the arc where the road had fallen away and you were supposed to drive around that. >> Scary as hell. I remember that. Yeah, it is scary. We went to the Tical, you know, I don't know if you had a chance to go to Tical or not. one of the lost cities, they have these big pyramids and uh uh the people are amazing. But yeah, it's always noble to see somebody that's doing the work and at the same time still wanting to go out and help people out. So I I want to I want to focus on a handful of things that's going on right now with current events. I want to get your thoughts on this one. Uh with obviously, you know, what we've seen the last 30 days with Minnesota. At first, Nick Shirley's content goes viral. We've all seen it. the 42 43 minute clip with what's going on there with you know uh insurance and and uh clinics and billions of dollars millions of dollars videos no kids are in there and then uh then we hear what happens with the first shooting uh uh I believe it's on January 6th if I'm not January 7th with Renee Good and then you have Alex Pretty that happens now that we've kind of seen everything for the most part we haven't had the hearing yet we haven't done all of that what What is your impression? What is your opinion on what's what's happened with Minnesota? >> I think there are some things that bring all of us together. I think that even if you're a left-wing Democrat in Boston and there's a rapist, a murderer, some guy assaulting somebody with a hammer, bad people that are in the jails that have served their time, they need to be deported. Even in Boston, they're fine with that. But we have to cooperate. The local officials have to cooperate with the national officials. Some of that's happened in a lot of places, but there's been more resistance in Minneapolis than just about any place in the United States. I think it changes though when all of a sudden the images aren't just arresting the bad guys. The images are, you know, the shooting of somebody who's filming and then the explanation from uh DHS is, well, he assaulted these officers and, you know, it snowed that week and so everybody's at home watching these videos. You probably saw it 100 times on TV and they're like, "Well, gosh, it looks like he's retreating. He's in the middle of the road filming. >> He's waving a car by, so he's not even obstructing traffic. They come towards him. He retreats. He retreats. >> One of the ICE agents violently pushes a woman down. Now, while that's not something that is, you know, that you arrest the ICE agent for, it's something that I wouldn't have anybody working for me who did that. You, that just is unacceptable behavior. if he was in the local police department and a woman came up and said, you know, I hate the police or whatever. And I'm sure they were saying hateful things and I'm sure they were instigating, but to finally throw her to the ground as they do, Petty turns, Petri turns to help her up and that's when they grab him from behind. At no point does he assault anybody. So, it assaults our sense of justice and our sense of any kind of uh right or wrong to say something that's not true. He did not assault anyone. Did he use bad language? Did he yell uh slurs at them? Probably. But he did not assault anybody. And then they say he brandished a weapon. Well, that wasn't true either. And then we have Steve Miller saying, "Well, he's an assassin. He's a would-be assassin." None of these things are through. And so then people say, "Well, you're, you know, I had this yesterday. A right-wing uh uh interviewer said, "Well, you're aiding and embedding the left." And I said, well, I believe that ICE has a function and I believe that ICE has to be respected. But the only way they can be respected is if they act in a just manner. So if you want ICE to continue and ICE to remove some of these bad people from our country, they have to behave and they can't tell us something that's not true. There has to be a code. There has to be a way that that people are treated. And this was a this was a what they call a bad shooting. This was a a terrible tragedy. The man never touched his weapon. The gun apparently by the video is pulled out by another one who yells, "Gun, gun, gun, and the officers made a mistake." Does that mean the officer should go to prison? No. But it probably means they shouldn't be policemen anymore. It shouldn't be law enforcement. I mean, it it's a mistake. It's a terrible, tragic mistake. Um, and so I don't want to end ICE, but you have to have justice and you have to have a review. And I I said, "Frankly, every local police department, even if it's a good shooting in my town, a a man came and shot a policeman eight times. The person riding along was a marine looking to become a policeman. He then killed the person with his bare hands." >> Both all justified bare hands. All justified. Took the police a year and a half to investigate it. But even a good shooting and everybody thought that that was a justified killing gets investigated. And so the fact that there would be no investigation, we would just say nothing to see here. This guy's an assassin. >> It it it it damages ICE worse than anything else that's being done by the left. >> So I I think we have to have an independent investigation at this point. >> I I agree. And you know, I think we need to do it to to see what happened there. Did you did you follow the story about knowing the the the weapon that he pulled that Alex pretty had the sick 320? you know, the hundred cases and allegations where it goes off because it's super sensitive and then once it went off the other ice heard the sound and then boom, he reacted to it. >> Yeah. And I thought that's what might have happened. It may still be what had happened and that would make a lot more sense. >> Uncommanded discharge is what they call that specific >> an accidental discharge. So, as the police officer removing it, you hear a gunshot and they all fire, think it's coming from from the person they're holding down. That would actually be a much easier to understand. It still would be a tragedy and it still wouldn't be good, but it would be easy to understand. >> The report from DHS that came out most recently did not mention any other discharge. And you would think the police officers there justifying their action would say, "We heard a shot." And they also would be able to look at the gun. I mean, you can tell, I'm not a forensics guy, but you can look at a gun and tell, I think, immediately if it's been fired. >> And um so I I don't know. I I think that if that happened, that would sort of you would understand why they opened fire. If that didn't happen, I think they're responding to gun, gun, gun. He's got a gun and thinking that underneath him somehow he has a gun instead of that there was a gun, you know, behind him in his waistband that actually had already been removed. >> Um, I don't know. And and like I say, there's a big difference. And I think what we don't differentiate in our country is we often think all bad, all good. This isn't all bad, all good. These are people trying to do their job. They are being assaulted, yelled at, spit upon, and it's a tough job. And I wish the people in Minnesota and the government were doing a better job cooperating. This shouldn't be happening. I have two policemen that work for me. They say in in my small town in Kentucky, the DEA comes in, the FBI, um, ATF, they come in and say, "We have someone who needs to be arrested in your town." It's like one or two of them come in. the local sheriff or the police department sends 10 people with them and most of the work's actually done by the local people and arresting the local person uh with the you know working together. Now my understanding is Minneapolis hasn't been allowing that. If Minneapolis were allowing that many of these things wouldn't happen but it did happen and the only way you can restore confidence in ICE some of the people have to go. They've let go of one of the commanders. That's a step forward. They've >> Yeah. They've sent somebody new in home and in to look at the situation. They've promised they're going to be I think less confrontational. Um so I don't understand why we're having these confrontations in the street really. Uh you know and um if you're going into someone's house how how sort of anybody is loitering around the streets and having these confrontations. >> Did you see the other clip of uh Alex Pretty what he did in the streets like a week prior to that or two weeks prior to that? The challenge with what you're saying is, which I agree with, is on one end he came out, he wanted to kill, he was doing this. On the other hand, he's a nice man. He would never do anything. You know, Elizabeth Warren, >> one or the other, >> I want to show you this clip. I want to show you this clip by Elizabeth Warren. So, I'm sure you've seen this. She's narrating it while you see uh him in the background. >> Caring for people was at the core of who he was. He was incapable of causing harm. Alex carried patience, compassion, and calm as a steady light within him. Even at the very end, that light was there. I recognized his familiar stillness and signature calm composure. >> So when you when you see these things, right, how do you react to it? Um, you know, when I saw the second clip that was released um of a different day in a different situation, I think every situation has to be judged as it is. So, I would have said he's guilty at the very least of of vandalism. And there is a form of assault that's going on when he's kicking the car and breaking the tail light. >> Uh, and I was thinking, gosh, they should have arrested him that day and done it in a way where, you know, he wasn't killed but arrested. Maybe he'd have still been in jail and, you know, it wouldn't have happened >> first time around. >> Yeah. the first time around >> you would have been alive more importantly you could have been in jail would have been avoided but it's it's figuring it out and a lot of us don't realize how tough the job is of a policeman local policemen are doing this every day so local policemen have to figure out how to do it and like I say it goes back to the the second instance where the local uh where the ICE agent is violently pushing the woman to the ground that's not the way it it works and really you wouldn't be on a local police force if you were you know in a on a street corner people yelling at you and you push a woman to the ground. That just probably wouldn't be acceptable to be in a police department to do that. But when he kicks a a car and breaks the headlight, he he's now caused damage. It's vandalism. It may well be a form of assault. At that point, they would have been justified in in arresting him, but police have to figure out how to rescue without killing him. And it it's very difficult. I'm not saying it's an easy job. Um, but it shows that he really probably wasn't an angel either, that he was a very angry man. And um, so but nothing justifies what happened on the latter encounter. And really, I think on the latter encounter, you you have to figure out a way to deescalate things. And deescalating things is not, you know, pepper- spraying everybody and bombing people with pepper spray. Basically, >> how much of this could have been prevented? And I'm talking about specifically from because when you when you hear the stories and I'm talking to friends of some of the guys are like I cannot believe this Pat. How can you defend this? What is this about cooperating? They should have never done this. This guy should be with his family right now. He's a good guy. And then you hear the other argument. Why? Why is the state not cooperating? All they had to do is cooperate for this to be prevented. When Obama was deporting the millions of people, how come the news wasn't as bad? Well, maybe because the local cities and states were cooperating with them by giving the report and they weren't. So, to the average person, how how would you unpack that message that they're not cooperating with DC? >> Some of that I want to get to the bottom of because I don't think I know because I'm hearing evidence on both sides. So, I hear from the DHS Minneapolis is sanctuary city and they're not cooperating. But then I hear from the director of prisons there. That's what I've seen on TV saying that the one guy, this sex offender that everybody agrees is terrible, is in prison. It's on a public website. They could have called us and instead they're going around breaking doors down everywhere looking for him and he's in prison and he has what's called a detainer. We will turn him over to ICE once he has served his sentence. >> And so that's what you hear from the Minneapolis people from the other side. You hear at Sanctuary said they're not doing there. there has to be a truth. So like a jury, you know, I present you with both of those and you say, "Well, I need more information." So I think my job is to try to bring them in. I'm going to try to bring in not only the the people from DHS, from ICE, and others to let us know what is the policy, what is what is an assault, what isn't an assault, what can people do, and how can we try to figure out how not to have any more deadly killings. But I also want to know, is Minneapolis cooperating, or aren't they? And so we're going to have to hear from the Minneapolis people and then we're gonna have to hear from the Republicans or the DHS people. Uh give us examples of how they weren't. But also, if this guy is in prison, how come you didn't know it? Did you call Minneapolis and they told you no, or are you at such odds that you aren't talking to Minneapolis? >> I don't know if it's not at odds because Trump will talk to anybody, right? Even Elizabeth Warren doing what she did in this video. uh Trump called her to say hey what do you think about the 10% interest rate right for credit cards you know he called talked to Tim Waltz to apparently Jacob Fry and on the call he says the call was good but then Fry comes out and you know says what he says so there's politics also being played and then there's even some people saying that uh what what story disappeared all of a sudden the the Somali daycare center no longer being talked about so I is this a good story that now got that to be gone and then Tim Walson's now he doesn't plan on running for office at all again. He just wants to go be a good citizen and do his thing. >> I think the fraud's not over. Whether it's misdirection and they're trying to steer us away from that possibly, but we're going to have a debate this week. We're having it on spending in Congress. And what I'm pointing out is something that Republicans don't want people to know. Their spending package has more refugee welfare in it. And my point is, if you think they're stealing the refugee welfare, you need to not give them anymore until something's figured out. You got to figure out a way. So there's $5 billion in the package again for refugee welfare. I'm I'm going to have an amendment that will strike that that will remove that completely because look, I'm not against refugees, but if you or your church want to sponsor refugee, you do it with your money. That's charity. If you're trying to take all the taxpayer money to do it for a 100,000 Somali, that's not charity. That is maybe a a bad public policy decision, frankly, to do it. And so, we need to look at all of this and we need to look at who's coming, who's who's not coming. We need to have rules on our immigration basically. >> That's common sense, too. You see, how is how is a common sense approach like that not landing with people uh uh on both sides? Meaning when you look at who's who takes the most, you know, entitlement programs that we have, who gets the most welfare, who stays on it the longest, you know, back in the days during Obama when remember when unemployment was past 6 months, 12 months, even at one point, people were getting it for 24. Oh, because I have a hard time getting a job. I have a hard time getting a job. We moved it to 90 days. Everybody got a job all of a sudden. >> Yeah. Economists have studied this over and over again. If unemployment lasts 28 weeks, almost everybody gets a job either between 27 weeks and 29 weeks. If unemployment is 52 weeks, everybody gets a job about 51 weeks to 53 weeks, right around there. And >> here's the other thing, and this is how if you look at public policy, you see the unintended consequences of things. So, they've also done this study. So, you and I go in for an interview. You've been out of work for two years, and I've been out of work for two months. Sure. >> Who do you think they hire? >> Months. >> Yeah. Because if you've been out of work two years, they think something's wrong with you. You've lost work ethic and you're not trying hard enough. Because frankly, what would always happen is, and this is what still happens, people take jobs they don't want to get by until they can get another job they like better. >> But if you uh provide them with uh welfare or unemployment benefits, they don't get that other job. >> But it also scares the off the employer. And so really extending um unemployment to a longer period is actually a disservice to the people you're doing it to because the longer they're out of work, the less likely anyone will ever employ them. >> That's that's the part though. Why give why allow somebody to be on entitlement program for 10 years? >> Why why allow them to get welfare for 10 years? If it's for three, six, 12 months, get a job, take care of yourself like everybody else. Some states allow that, some don't. That to me is common sense. You have to have um guard rails around everything. You know, one of the things my dad used to say is we don't necessarily need a wall. What we need is a wall around the welfare system. And so you do you have to have rules. So able-bodied people shouldn't be on food stamps. So if you are able-bodied and single, if you're a 21-y old guy, 21 year old woman, there's no reason to be on food stamps. In fact, when food stamps started, they were for the single mom with four kids who everybody says, "Well, she ought to work, but what can she do? She's got four kids. And so we acknowledge we take care of some people who couldn't take care of themselves so they wouldn't starve. But a 21-year-old boy or or girl, frankly, there are jobs everywhere, particularly for men because if you can lift stuff and you have uh you're physically able, there is a job for you. >> For sure. I agree. But what that also that policy also did, if you're talking about the the Lynden Johnson 1964 when they came out with taking care of single mothers with four kids, at the time the focus was to help the single mother with four kids. But it also inspired a lot of single women to become single mothers with four kids because they saw the benefit of relying on the government to give them income and without having to work. So it not only was it a bad policy, it produced a lot of people that were relying on the government to take care of them. >> Yeah. There was a book written a while back and it separated the population into sort of two tracks and they uh said well this these people are at the 90 percentile as far as income and everything else. These people are at the 10 percentile and they say what are the differences between these two groups >> and the difference was primarily uh education and having children before you're married. And I tell people this all the time because I think it's incredibly important but I can't make a law. I can't tell you you can't have kids. I can't tell you you can't. >> Can you create incentives though where where like you create incentives to >> possibly possibly >> what's the country that said if you're married >> I don't know how many years and you have your third kid you know >> hungry >> hungry is who okay yeah >> yeah I'm not opposed to things like you know reduction in taxes. I don't think we should give you money because we don't have any money frankly we're two trillion in the hole each year. We're 38 trillion in the hole overall. So, I'm not for like saying I'll give you $1,000 to to to not have kids. They were doing the opposite in Hungary. They're giving you $1,000 to have kids. You know, they >> How bad were their uh how bad was the child birth rate? >> Well, because in Europe, all of Europe's underwater, you know, and US is becoming that. >> 58 is pretty bad in the US. Yeah. Or we're becoming that. But I think the bottom line is there are things that need to change in society and problems we have, but there isn't necessarily always a governmental answer. So, for example, having kids before you're married almost inevitably, if your parents are rich, you can do it, but almost inevitably leads to a life of struggling economically and poverty. So, what I would do is I would actually make that part of the curriculum, not from a moral standpoint, not to say morally you're evil if you're having sex before you're married. I would say >> these are the statistics and in all likelihood you will be poor. So if you'll do things to try to prevent having children when you're 15, 16, 17, you have a chance. You have a much better chance of getting ahead. >> Yeah, it's a it's a great conversation of and the thing is we have the data to make better decisions. It's not like we don't have the data to see what produces and what doesn't. When we set out to create a shoe that blends comfort, function, and luxury, we had the choice to make it fast. We had the choice to make it cheap. We chose neither. Instead, we chose Tuscan Italy. We chose true Italian craftsmanship. Each pair touched by 50 skilled hands. We chose patience, spending two years perfecting every detail. And we chose the finest quality at every step. Introducing the future looks bright collection. Not rushed, not disposable, not ordinary. rather intentional, luxurious, timeless. Yesterday, was it yesterday or two days ago, you and Marco Ruby had a good exchange? I think it was. Was it yesterday? >> Yeah, >> yesterday. Yeah. It's hard for us to conceive that an operation that lasted about four and a half hours and was a law enforcement operation to capture someone we don't recognize as a head of state indicted in the United States wanted with a $50 million bount would be if it only took four hours to take our president. It's very short. Nobody dies on the other side. Nobody dies on our side. It's perfect. Would it be an act of war? >> We just don't believe that this operation comes anywhere close to the constitutional definition of war. >> But would it be an act of war if someone did it to us? Nobody dies. Few casualties. They're in and out. Boom. It's a perfect military operation. Would that be an act of war? Of course it would be an act of war. I'm probably the most anti-war person in the Senate. And I would vote to declare war if someone invaded our country and took our president. >> And and you were talking to him about uh uh Venezuela with, you know, going in and taking Maduro and, you know, uh uh if that were to happen to us, would that not be considered war? how would we react to it? Right? If you don't mind kind of taking a minute and give your argument on that because I have some questions on that. >> So, we had the debate during our constitutional convention over how war should begin. Should one person have the power the president or should we give that power to the legislature? And it was pretty much unanimous from Hamilton to Jefferson. We're going to give the power to initiate or declare war to Congress. That's what the constitution says. Now, executing the war, we have a president who's the commander-in-chief. And really most all the decisions about how to execute or how to fight a war are the president's prerogative. And so we had this debate over what happened in Venezuela. They say, "Well, it's not a constitutional war." And we say, "Well, why?" And their lawyers all get together and they say, "Well, because there weren't enough people who died." And so quick they're in and out. The war is already over. How you say we're at war? And so my question is, well, if that wasn't a war, would it be a war if a country came in, bombed DC and the US such that we couldn't respond with air defense missiles, flew in, and then uh took our president, and then they arranged their armada up and down the east coast to blockade our east coast. Would that be an act of war? And I said, "Look, I'm one of the most anti-war people you'll ever meet. I don't like war. I think war is the last resort. I'll vote to declare war when someone tell me it snatches our president attacks us. So it is an act of war and logic doesn't work and it's like oh you're saying moral equivalency to us in Maduro. No I'm not. I think Maduro is a scoundrel. Socialism is bad. Authoritarian's bad. I wrote a whole book called the case against socialism against Maduro and against that the Venezuelan socialism. And yet logic is what it is. If that's not a war, then why would it be a war? Would not, you know, it would have to be a not a war if someone attacked us. It's the same with the drug bust. We're like, well, you know, he's violated the laws against oil and drugs and stuff. Those are our laws. We also accuse Maduro, who is a terrible person, but we accused him of having machine guns, violating a 1934 US law. That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. We can't arrest people from foreign countries for breaking American laws when they are not even here breaking the American laws. It's just really, really dumb. But they're saying it's a drug bust because first it's not big enough to be a real war and then really it's not a war, it's a drug bust. So they're trying to convince people they don't have to come to us and ask. But there are threats now putting more troops in. If they don't behave, we've threatened to put more troops in. Do they have to ask for permission? Then I think it's always better. It's what the Constitution intended and we have on very important uh occasions asked Congress when we were attacked at Pearl Harbor when we were attacked at 911. Congress was virtually unanimous and the people were behind the effort at least in the the first decade or so of the Afghan war. But I mean >> do you think it was a right move? >> Uh taking out uh what? Yeah. I would have voted for declaration of war after 911. You would have. Yeah. Okay. And and virtually everybody did. Even even my father voted for that at the time. Um and I would have voted uh also with Pearl Harbor after we were attacked at Pearl Harbor. But I wouldn't have voted for the Iraq war. The Iraq war uh we didn't have the same consensus and it also misdirected us and was done under misinformation. The misre the misinformation was that oh Iraq uh you know is you know has weapons of mass destruction is threatening to attack us or that they're part of 9/11. there was actually the intimation by George W. Bush that really they were responsible for 9/11. Uh it just wasn't true. >> Well, we learned that 20 years later and what $3 trillion and how many amount of lives that uh you know we lost there. But do you think uh would you as a non-interventionist yourself? We haven't had a non-interventionist president since Calvin Kulage 30s, whatever you want to call it, right? Would you call President Trump the first non-interventionist president since Calvin Kulage? >> I would have. Um, you know, one of the things that attracted me to Donald Trump and and really I I have been close to him. You know, I I know him well. I've known him for over a decade. He helped support my mission trip to Guatemala and to Haiti. He gave he gave money so I could go down there. But the um he ran on a much different policy. I never really liked the the Bushwing of the party. The Bushwing of the party believed that they were going to spread freedom everywhere at the point of a gun. And by golly, we'll make these people like freedom whether they like it or not. And it it just doesn't work. I mean, people can get freedom. And it's even probably true in Venezuela. The people who want freedom are going to have to get it even now. They still haven't got they still have the socialist authoritarian regime still in place. They have to get their own freedom. They have to fight for their own freedom ultimately. >> But I think that the philosophy of Trump was much different. philosophy uh was for less >> first term or what he for >> even what he campaigned for this last time he probably mentioned 30 times on the trail how much he was against regime change but the people around him have have very much had some influence Lindsey Graham has a disproportionate amount of influence he's around him a lot uh and so does Marco Rubio and they both are believers in regime change >> the Lindsey Graham relationship is tricky it's it's kind of a it doesn't make sense fully Rubio does the Lindsey Graham one is a little bit confusing But but would you consider him because remember when he was getting elected the first time around. Do you want him to have access to the button because World War II and you know it's supposed he's going to start wars with everybody. Boom. Comes in ISIS all this stuff. Calm, relax, and then the protest start. Then co we have to use it against them. Then Biden comes in. Then you got Russia, Ukraine, October 7th. Then he comes in lowering the temperature. You know he said he stopped eight and a half wars. I don't know what he said, eight or eight and a half words the way he says it. Would you would you put him down as a non-interventionist? >> No. Um, but I would say that his instincts are more aligned with mine than any other Republican has been in in my lifetime really. So, I I want to compliment that. I don't want to disparage that. Is he exactly where I am as far as a philosophy of non-intervention? You know, my philosophy really would be we go to war out of defense, you know, when we're when we're being attacked. I don't really believe in offensive war. you know, as much as I want freedom for Venezuela, as much as I want freedom for Iran, uh I don't really want to get involved with with wars over there, um unless we were attacked. They aren't neither one of them are a threat to our national security or in our national interest. Um but Trump has been less I think more um open to the idea, well, the Western Hemisphere is different. these things. This is my the the the new Donald's uh Monro version of the Monroe Doctrine. >> Oh, I don't know. I think that um I think that the ideas of non-intervention really apply no matter where you're thinking about in the world. They might apply less so if it's, you know, there's an army along the border of Mexico thinking about invading. I think our border is much more important. But there's nothing about Venezuela. And in fact, many of the things that were argued about Venezuela frankly weren't true. I was on a program not too long ago and the the the broadcaster said to me, "Oh yeah, but at least we've stopped the fentanyl." And I was like, "Well, you know, there's no fentanyl ever." Yeah. And even the cocaine, most of it's going to Europe or to other islands on the way. >> And still some of it makes it here though. >> Probably some, but even the boats we've been blowing up, these are boats with four outboard motors. They probably go about a 100 miles and they have to refuel. They're 2,000 miles from our coast. Most of these boats aren't coming to America and we always have stopped them in the past. We have always interdicted and we still actually do interdict boats even all the way down off Venezuela. >> But when we stop them about one in four don't have any drugs on them. We've we've stopped a boat that we were suspicious of didn't have any drugs. >> It was more of a you know leading because they were building into a delta I think Delta IV started working on this in August. So they've known for four months that they're going to attack to get Maduro. So you're saying this is all optics? >> Yeah, it's a it's a ruse in a way. It's the whole idea that he's being, you know, it's a drug bust. That way it's not a war, so we don't have to tell Congress. So drug bust we can do anytime we want anywhere we want. We're justified. >> Who do you think thought about that strategy? >> Um well, it's it's an elaborate strategy. I mean, they spent months blowing up these boats, not because they really thought they were going to do anything. >> Who do you think came up with that idea? >> Who do I think came up with it? Um I'm not positive uh exactly who came up with it. to speculate. Would it be a Rubio? Would it be a Lindsay? I don't know. >> I don't know specifically who came up with the boat strategy. I guess what I what I can tell you is that I'm disappointed that almost nobody else in my caucus pointed out the fact or is concerned with are these people armed in the boats. You know, if this is a war, typically you shoot people are armed. Occasionally people aren't armed get get killed, but usually when you're trying to kill people are armed. Um they say, "Oh, they're attacking us. It's a war on drugs. They're they're weapon is the drugs." And I say, "Well, not unless they're going to hit you on the head with a package of cocaine." I mean, uh selling drugs isn't a war. It's a terrible thing. People ought to be, you know, told how, you know, the scourge of what happens being addicted. But you're not being attacked with these drugs. You're making a foolish decision to to buy their drugs and to use them. But think about this boat. Think about the boat. It gets to Miami. If it ever could get to Miami, it offloads it into a U-Haul truck. Now they're going up I95. Do we take out a grenade launcher and blow up the truck? Well, nobody would be for that. Well, why would we be for that on the open seas? It We have always had rules on the open seas that actually mirror ours. Not exactly the same, but the rules of the Coast Guard engagement are bullhorn, halt, we are going to board you to search. We suspect you of having drugs. If they stop, they're boarded and it proceeds. If they don't stop, they can uh try to disable the boat with with shots. And that's what they usually do. Then they either stop or it escalates. If they shoot back at you, then you can kill them. And that escalation of force is what we've always had. And mainly because if you're out there fishing and it looks like you're in the similar boat, but you are fishing, then you say, "Well, come aboard. There's no drugs. You don't get killed." Uh here, we're not taking any of those steps. And the Coast Guard statistics say about one in four times they're wrong. But I think the the callousness on the part really of a lot of my colleagues on my side is like, "Oh, we don't care. They're drug dealers." Well, it's an allegation. You know, that's why we don't blow up a truck. You know, when we do, let's say we go into someone's house in in DC. We have a warrant. We do all the appropriate things. Sometimes a number gets transposed. We're at the wrong house. That's why we don't take a grenade launcher and just blow up the drug house. We actually and it's it's hard work, but the policeman actually has to knock on the door and go into the house because sometimes we get the wrong house and we've had tragedies in our country getting the wrong house. But you can't just blow people up and say that that is a is any way just or justice. >> Yeah. You the the community that's the happiest is Venezuelans. Venezuelans celebrating that he's no longer there. even some of the, you know, uh, TV folks who cannot stand the president coming out and saying, "Look, you guys know I don't like him. You guys know I don't like what he stands for, but this is a celebration for our community, etc., etc." To me, I I I get the Monroe downro doctrine to take care of the Western hemisphere and make sure we're safe. But maybe let me ask the one question that's separate. Why do you think because I think the the reason why I think you're a very necessary voice is you know if everybody agreed even from the conservative side and within the conservative side there are in debates then we have certain blind spots and you're always the guy that kind of comes in and says what's he saying? Oh okay good point. What's he saying? Oh okay we should consider that. Why do you think non-interventionist presidents don't get elected? Why do you think presidents that get elected are typically the ones that are interventionist if somebody crosses the line with us? >> I think that's a that's a a really good question because I think people and this is a generalization about the public but I think they want things to be done. They want somebody to do something. So in some ways Trump does something. He's been aggressive. So was President Obama frankly in using the executive order. He's impatient now that Congress won't do things. They want to get rid of the filibuster. They want to make it easier to do do. >> And I guess from the non-interventionist point, what you're advocating for is sort of peace and prosperity. And people like that. They also want to doer and they're convinced that someone is evil. We must do something about this. It's the same with the economy. You know, if you look at um our wealth and our prosperity over the last 200 years worldwide, but particularly in the US, it is just beyond belief. And yet people can't come to grips with this. I've been on a speaking tour to colleges and I start out with asking them, is it the best of times or the worst of times? You know, the tale of two cities, Charles Dickens, you know, is it an age of wisdom or an age of foolishness? You know, >> um mixed, but mostly Democrats are very, very pessimistic if they're Democrats. If they're Republicans, they're mixed. But really, nobody is as um as joyful or elated as they should be. the statistics. There's a group called humanprogress.org out of Ko and they look at this kind of stuff. In 1820 at the beginning of the industrial revolution, 98% of people lived in abject poverty. This is defined as less than $2 a day. And they do this in constant dollars and they measure it. So when I was married in 1990, um it had gone from 98% in absolute poverty to 33%. Just just an amazing thing. But from when I was married in 1990 to today, it's less than 10%. >> Wow. >> Less than 10% of the world lives on $2 a day. The miracle of the industrial revolution, the miracle of technology is just beyond belief. How many hours it takes you to like buy a refrigerator, the average workman worked like 160 hours to buy a refrigerator in the 1950s when it was supposedly so good. They work like 10 hours or something to buy a refrigerator or less. Now, >> uh, electricity, you know, originally they the candlestick makers hated Edison and they worried so much and all the candlestick makers were out of business and they did all go out of business. >> But it used to cost, I think it was a thousand working hours to have enough electricity to read at night for a year. Now it's 10 seconds of the average man's working to have a light bulb for a whole year. >> This this gives me the vibes of future looks bright. This gives me optimism. Yeah, there is there's incredible optimism, but there's whole books written on this. Uh Steven Pinker's written a book on this, Marian Tupi, >> that people just can't handle good news. They want to hear bad news because and some people say we were evolved that way. So let's say our village is doing very well, but one day out of the year the line comes. >> We talk about the lion every day after that line eats one of our kids, eats eats one of our wives. And so we're very fearful of the bad news, but we're not really willing to incorporate the good news so much. >> You know, it's it's interesting on going back to the question, why don't non-interventionists become presidents, right? You know, Pat Buchanano was one of the favorites. You know, a lot of people talk about William Jennings uh uh uh I think William Jennings Brian back in the days, you know, he campaigned Christian guy, good guy. I think he was a Democrat, but he campaigned on uh uh running for office. He ran three times, failed in my company. Like this week, something happened. And it's funny because even in my insurance company now, we would have somebody that would do a compliance thing or somebody would do something to us. And we'd sit there and we say, "How do we react to this? Do we sue? Do we not sue?" And to me, the non-interventionist executive will always say, "What? Why would we sue? It's just noise. No need to do it." Then the other guy's going to be like, if the market believes they can keep doing this to us, we have to sue. Let's make it public. Right? So, this is Rand Paul and this is going to be, you know, somebody else that's >> I I think there is that. And just on the lawsuit thing, I always love the Wall Street uh the Walmart approach. Walmart takes everybody. You you you steal from Walmart, you take something off shelf, everybody is prosecuted. >> What do you think about that? >> Um they fight everything. And what they do is they deter lawsuits. And in some ways in business it is good. If people if if people are going to rip you off uh you have to push back on it. >> But going back to the the non-interventionism and you know what sells and doesn't sell. >> The bigger broader part of it not just with foreign policy is the idea of the message of let's say uh I'm a Democrat and what do Democrats offer you for an election? They'll give you free car, free education. They'll give me some of your money if you make more money than me. We'll take some of your money and give it to me. if you have three cars, they'll give me one of your cars. That kind of stuff. So, they they're big on giving you material things. Their message is pretty easy to sell. I mean, if you're if you're uh working stiff and you don't have much money and I say, "I'll give you a free car." Well, damn. All right. Chicken in every pot. The Huey Long chicken in every pot. But then along comes the other side. And the other side is somewhat non-interventionist in the economy as well as overseas. So, we're the the libertarians, the free market. What do I offer you? I say look the system of capitalism of freedom of freedom of exchange where I don't tell you what you can charge or what you can make and what you can sell has created more prosperity than any other economic system in the world has created phenomenal prosperity and I can show you over the last 200 years what's happened in America and people are dying to get into America which is going to sell which is easier sell I think mine is a harder sell because I'm not offering you something so inherently the ideas of freedom liberty and limited government, less intervention in the marketplace, your personal life, or even if it's your personal life, I say, "Well, uh, you know, I don't think we ought to regulate what your kids can do on the internet. You regulate what your kids do on the internet." And people, oh, no, we need to intervene. And it's like, so one of the laws they passed, and I oppose this was, we're going to tell your kid that he's 13, he cannot see gambling ads or beer on Hulu or some streaming service. And I said, 'Well, when you turn on the broadcast TV and you watch golf, they're sponsored by FanDuel and all these companies, that's all you see is gambling. And if you watch the Super Bowl on broadcast TV, all you see is beer. But you're going to regulate the internet and a 13-year-old is going to have to say, "I'm 13, and then we're going to turn off the beer commercials and the gambling commercial." Like, >> give me a break. Give me a break. >> Right. So, there is an interventionist in Rand Paul. That's interesting. So, there's an element there. Last question before we wrap up. I know we got a heart out. Uh, President Trump intervening in California for the LA fires, the wildfires for permitting. Your thoughts? If the if the permits are federal, we should make it easier to get permitting. And, you know, I always think of what I would do. Like, I saw the fire and saw how horrible the fires were and I was like, why don't they pump seawater up into sisterns on the hills and have hills? I guarantee it's because they think the salt's going to hurt some animal or grass and it probably would, but it's like you want your house to burn down or you're worried about some blew wevil that runs around in the grass. Um, so also like if I had one of those 1520 million houses in Malibu, I'd have a hose about this big and I would have four pumps ready for if a fire were coming to and there were people who did who drenched their house and the fire did skip them. But there's ways to do it. There's also management of the forest. I mean, you got to cut some of your undergrowth, you know, and there are ways to try to manage fires. But Californians are the epitome of people who do nothing, then complain, and then want the rest of the country to pay for it. But the intersection with the federal government with us would just be there are federal things that require permission. But this is how bad it I'll give you an example how bad it is. We had uh these two um bridges, twin bridges on Kentucky Lake. A tugboat hit them and knocked out the bridge. And I said, 'Well, we should be rebuild the bridges as soon as possible. Why don't we skip the permitting process, the NEPA and all the EPA stuff where we measure how many pocketbook muscles there are and whether the bridge is going to build the damn bridge. We're going to do it anyway. Why do we waste millions of dollars in two years doing this stupid permitting process? Just skip it when you have a an emergency and when you're going to rebuild a bridge in the same place. Democrats voted me down. Half the Republicans voted against me. I all I wanted was an emergency exception for bridges to be rebuilt in the same place where they had already been approved but when they're knocked down, you know, by a calamity and I couldn't get it passed. That that's the problem with this with this government. >> I mean, the challenge with California is 2500 permits given so far. That's 13% of the homes that have burned. Uh permits are taking God knows how long. Uh only 10 10 homes have been rebuilt from the fires. So imagine he's sitting there saying if you're not going to do it, I got to come overlapping and intervene and expedite it. >> Well, and that's a question and I I don't know enough about the permitting process on homes to know which is state and which is federal. There are things that require federal and they're usually across waterways along the ocean, things like that. Building a house is probably all completely local. And I guess one of the ways ultimately California is punished is people just leave. I mean, they're leaving by the the hundreds of thousands. >> Doesn't seem like Nome cares though. Yeah, you seem like it bothers them. >> Well, and the thing is is they're going, you know, Sweden finally learned their lesson when Sweden imposed a wealth tax. So, not attacks on your income, but attacks on how much you have had and saved and all of the rich people left. Bjornborg left, the founder of IKEA left, they all left. And Sweden finally said, "Well, will you come back?" And they got rid of the wealth tax. California is now entertaining this wealth tax and it's a terrible idea and I can't imagine any rich people will remain in California but the rich people pay a lot of taxes. This is the whole mantra of the left which is absolutely a lie. Rich people are not paying their fair share. It's actually the opposite. Rich people pay all the taxes. And yeah I said this once on the view and I don't recommend going on the view. I said I said you realize people making $50,000 or less don't pay any income tax. They're like, "No, no, you're you're lying." And it's like, "No, husband and wife, two kids, the deduction is 12,500 times 4 is 50,000. If you make $50,000 a year, husband and wife, and you have two kids, you don't pay income tax." But you know who pays income tax? The top 1% pays about 40 to 50% of the income tax. That's 1%. So, they're paying half of the income tax for the whole country. >> It's not popular, though. If you if you say that on CNN or MSNBC, god forbid, that truth comes out. The top 10%, which is about 200,000 and up, pays 90% of the income tax. So really, the rich are paying the income tax. The other taxes are more evenly distributed. Uh sales tax and things like that, although rich people buy more stuff than than poor people buy, so they're paying more in sales taxes, too. Um but the bottom line is it used to differentiate Republicans from Democrats. We always said it's not a revenue problem. We don't need more revenue. We don't need to punish more. We need to cut spending. But now it's become muddled because Donald Trump has now become a big believer in in taxes. You know, he loves tariffs, which is simply a tax. And so you have many Republicans, I hate taxes, and I'm not for raising taxes except for tariffs. I'm for raising tariffs. But the problem is is it's muddled the message of Republicans. We're no longer a party of low taxes. We're a party that is now bragging about, oh, we're going to use the tariff revenue here. We're going to give rebates. >> It's a weapon for the president to use though, right? Because if the enemy uses it against us, I want him to have it. My concern is if Supreme Court takes that away from him, that power away from him, which he keeps bringing it up, which means they may do it. They may say no, and then we lose the revenue that we're getting. >> Well, it's not a matter of taking it away from the Constitution is pretty explicit. Taxes originate in the House, have to go to the Senate. It specifically even mentions duties and levies. It it mentions tariffs in the Constitution, says that they are in the prerogative of the House. Even the Senate can't we're not supposed to initiate tariffs. Only the House does. comes to the Senate, goes to the president. It is a tax. A tariff is a tax and it never was the prerogative of the president. Now, some legislation has tried to give him that power, but what he's using is something called AIPA, which is an emergency legislation, and it doesn't mention anything about terror. >> You think Supreme Court's going to rule against him? >> If they follow the law, they absolutely will rule against him. >> You got to be kidding me. >> Yeah, because the the law is explicit. And so he will try to use other reasons for how he can use tariffs. But it's also very chaotic. I mean, you know, one week he says to Canada, he says, "Oh, Canada. Yeah, go ahead. Whatever. Do whatever. Make a deal with with China. We don't care." The next week he says, "If you make a deal with China, I'm giving you 100% tariff." That's that's very chaotic. You see >> that's personality. >> Well, I know. But it but we didn't set up a government to be run by one person. It's back to the intervention. People kind of want an actor, but then again, do we want an actor that's acting radically with regard to tariffs such that the market goes down a thousand points when he says he's going to look Canada's our biggest trading partner. There is no reason why we wouldn't shouldn't want more trade with Canada. >> They they should want we have the best customers don't know like we are the best customers. They need us more than we need them. >> Trade is mutually beneficial and so both sides of the trade. There is no you know and this is the the thing that is a fallacy that Trump doesn't get. Trade isn't China doesn't rip us off. We only trade with people because we get a benefit. And so if if I want to sell you this water and it's $2, you have to want my water more than you want your $2 and I want your $2 more than the water. We actually both have to mutually benefit or it doesn't >> somebody is more important. >> Say again. Nobody is. If you have a product to get into Walmart with a ton of customers and you're selling shoes or you're selling a jacket, Walmart wants your business, but you want to be in Walmart more than Walmart needs you. They're both the same. It's always it's always equal because all trades have to be mutually beneficial. Walmart has to believe what they sold you that they made money and they have to measure it for their stock. >> Opportunity lies with getting into Walmart because they have there's 50 people that have your product. I'm giving you the opportunity, >> right? >> Well, the thing is is the opportunity and the reason Walmart was successful is is I saved money by going to Walmart versus um Joe Smith's hardware store was always great to have it in a small town, but they charge 20% more than Walmart. So, Walmart put them out of business, but you know what? The average Walmart shopper saves $1,000 a year, maybe $1,500 a year because they're able to buy imported project products from other countries. I would still go to the PX over Walmart, just so you know that. Anyways, I got to get you out of here, Senator. Great talking to you. This was fantastic. >> Appreciate your time. All the best. Take care. Bye-bye. >> When we set out to create a shoe that blends comfort, function, and luxury. We had the choice to make it fast. We had the choice to make it cheap. We chose neither. Instead, we chose Tuscan Italo. We chose true Italian craftsmanship. Each pair touched by 50 skilled hands. We chose patience, spending two years perfecting every detail. And we chose the finest quality at every step. Introducing the future looks bright collection. Not rushed, not disposable, not ordinary, rather intentional, luxurious, timeless.