TruthArchive.ai - Tweets Saved By @SenRandPaul
reSee.it AI Summary
Two survivors of a recent boat strike weren’t detained, searched for drugs, prosecuted, or kept; they were sent home to be tried in their country. If the strike assumed drug cargo but survivors weren’t investigated, I wonder if the government lacked enough proof. The Constitution requires Congress to authorize war; until then, treat this as law enforcement, not warfare. Lesson: due process prevents chaos and protects the Fourth Amendment; you don’t maintain order by abandoning the Constitution.
@SenRandPaul - Senator Rand Paul
Two people survived one of the recent boat strikes. They were not detained, not checked for drugs, not prosecuted. They were sent back to be tried in their own country. If the strike was based on the assumption that the boat was carrying drugs, and the survivors weren’t even investigated, do we suspect government simply didn’t have enough proof in the first place? The Constitution requires Congress to authorize war. Until then treat this as law enforcement, not warfare. Lesson to be learned: Adhering to due process prevents chaos and protects the Fourth Amendment. You don’t maintain order by abandoning the Constitution.
Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker 0 states that in a recent explosion, many on the boats died while two survived. He asks whether those two were detained and checked for drugs or drug residue, whether evidence from the wreckage was gathered, and whether they were prosecuted, noting that instead they were simply sent back to their country.
He argues that policy cannot allege someone is guilty and then kill them. He notes that interdictions occur off the coast of Miami and off the coast of California, and cites Coast Guard statistics: about 25% of the boats stopped to search don’t have any drugs. He asks what kind of person would justify blowing up people when “one out of four boats may well not have drugs on them,” and he concludes, “So don't do it again. Is that the message?”
He continues by stating that the message, which has been thought in the Senate and will be thought again next week, is that “you do get to kill people when you're at war.” He clarifies that if there is a war, “the constitution says congress has to vote for a declaration of war.” He says he is not in favor of declaring war with Venezuela and despises socialism, communism, and authoritarianism, but he does not support starting a war with Venezuela. He emphasizes that if you have a war, you can kill the enemy; if you don’t have a war, you have international crime, and you must treat it as such.
He concludes by noting that seas, even in international waters, have had rules of engagement for over a century, and they “don’t involve blowing people up without first asking them if they were allowed to be boarded to be searched.”
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: One of the interesting thing is is one of the recent explosions, a bunch of the people on the boats died, but two people survived. Did we detain them and check them for drugs or drug residue? Did we gather the evidence from the wreckage and then prosecute them? No. We just said, oh, well, we're gonna send you back to your country.
So I really think that you cannot have a policy where you just alleged that someone is guilty of something and then kill them. The reason being that we interdict ships all the time off the coast of Miami, off the coast of California, and the coast guard statistics say that about 25% of the boats that we stopped to search don't have any drugs. So if one out of four of the boats don't have drugs on them, you know, what kind of person would justify blowing up people when one out of four votes may well not have drugs on them? So don't do it again. Is that the message?
Well, what what the message is is that and this has been thought in the senate, will be thought again next week, is you do get to kill people when you're at war. So if we are to be at war, the constitution says congress has to vote for a declaration of war. I'm not for declaring war with Venezuela. I despise socialism, communism, authoritarianism, but I'm not in favor of starting a war with Venezuela. If you have a war, you can kill the enemy.
If you don't have a war, you have international crime, and you have to treat it as such. And, really, the the seas, even in international waters, there have been rules of engagements for over a century, and they don't involve blowing people up without first asking them if they were allowed to be boarded to be searched.
reSee.it AI Summary
Newly released emails reveal that Anthony Fauci instructed colleagues to delete an email from February 2020. This raises questions about his actions regarding gain-of-function experiments and the narrative around COVID's origins. I appreciate the opportunity to discuss this on @TheRedactedInc.
@SenRandPaul - Senator Rand Paul
Newly released emails show Anthony Fauci told colleagues to “delete this e-mail after you read it”—all the way back in February 2020. Now the truth is out, and Fauci finally has to answer to Congress. Fauci scrambled to erase his tracks on risky gain-of-function experiments, peddling a convenient narrative about COVID’s origins. While the media bought the animal transmission story, the truth was buried to protect power. Thanks for having me, @ClaytonMorris, on @TheRedactedInc.
Video Transcript AI Summary
During the Biden administration, attempts to obtain records on funding for Wuhan research were blocked; findings came largely from FOIA challenges. Communications allegedly show Fauci and NIH director Francis Collins instructing: 'read this, this is some more crap coming from me, the senator from Kentucky, I wanna be done with this. When you're done reading it, delete this material.' The speaker says this is illegal and constitutes two crimes: destroying federal records and lying to Congress. The auto pen pardon raises questions about Biden's awareness; the operator says he never met the president, and 'thousands of auto pen pardons' were issued. The speaker has invited Fauci to testify; if not accepted, a subpoena will be issued. They claim Fauci lied to Congress and that gain-of-function research was funded by the United States government with Fauci's approval. Kennedy, Bhattacharya, Makary cooperative. End deadline for Fauci's response is this week or next.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: So do you think the walls are closing in on doctor Fauci? Can you walk us through exactly what you've uncovered regarding these alleged requests to delete official records?
Speaker 1: So during the entire Biden administration, I've sought records of what went on, the decision making, why did they fund the research in Wuhan, China, why were they suppressing evidence that it the origin of the virus came from the lab, from a lab accident, and, we got nothing. The Biden administration stiff armed us at every turn. They prevented us from getting virtually any documents. Most of the things we learned during the Biden administration actually came from freedom of information, people outside of government challenging, and the court forcing the Biden administration to reveal things. What we've discovered is in the communications between Anthony Fauci and others, including the head of the NIH, Francis Collins, he would say, read this, this is some more crap coming from me, the senator from Kentucky, I wanna be done with this.
When you're done reading it, delete this material. That's, illegal. You're not allowed to delete, emails and and discussions about government business if you're in the executive branch. So, he also has testified that he didn't do that. So it's sort of two crimes.
One crime is destroying federal records. The other crime is that he's previously under oath said he wouldn't. Now there is the big question of the auto pen pardon, and so that will have to be challenged, but I think this is the best case. It's a good case. I think it's very neat and tidy, lied to Congress, and then destroyed records.
Now he has the auto pen. Does the auto pen, pardon hold? Is it enough? Was president Biden aware of what he was doing? There are thousands of auto pen pardons that were issued.
I think there's a very good question whether or not, Biden was aware of that. They've interviewed the person who was running the auto pen. He says he never met the president. So the person doing the auto pen never discussed it directly. He's hearing it from higher ups who were talking to higher ups who allegedly talked to the president.
So I think there's a lot to go on here, and this is a good chance for this to get into into the courts, and and and for, frankly, the Department of Justice to fight it out. Whether or not they will do that is an open question, but what I can say right now is I have invited Anthony Fauci in voluntarily. If that is accepted, we're done, and we will bring him in. If it's not accepted, we will subpoena him.
Speaker 0: Now what sort of specific are we talking about prison time here? Like what type of specific crimes destroying federal records?
Speaker 1: Lying to is the biggest one, probably. It's It can be five years in prison, is a felony. Destroying records, I think adds to that crime and is against the law. So, I think lying to Congress will be the most consequential, but it also shows what kind of person we were dealing with here. We were dealing with a person who was saying, there's no way it came from the lab, and I didn't fund it, and we had no idea they were doing dangerous research.
But we have contemporaneous emails. When he was saying publicly, he had no idea, and it couldn't have been gain of function. He was saying privately, we're very worried about that lab because we know they do gain of function research there. And the gain of function research was funded by the United States government with the approval of Anthony Fauci. So virtually everything he said, during the entire pandemic was untrue about the origins, but also untrue about what to do.
Do cloth masks work to prevent the transmission? They don't. And yet he was parading around with the Washington Nationals mask telling everybody to wear a cloth mask, and that was bad advice. You know? I mean, for someone to say that's gonna help you and you take their advice and you get infected, that's bad advice.
Speaker 0: You mentioned secretary Kennedy in in all of this. How forthcoming has the Trump administration been to I mean, you know, it's kinda like looking back at yourself in a lot of ways. Right? I mean, doctor Fauci was standing there alongside president Trump, operation warp speed, the whole thing. So in many ways, this is shining a light on yourself.
How forthcoming has the Trump administration secretary Kennedy and others been on your pursuits here of Fauci?
Speaker 1: Secretary Kennedy, NIH director Jay Bhattacharya, FDA director Marty Makarya have all been very very willing to help, very cooperative. And it took a little while to get things going, but I don't think it was their fault. And now we're having complete cooperation and exchange of information, and like I say, it's a lot of information to search through, but our initial investigation has come up with this, I think, very clear cut evidence that he lied to Congress when he said he did not destroy federal records, when in fact, not only did he destroy records, he was advising other people to do the same as well.
Speaker 0: Will he testify? I know you said you've put that request out. Has he any response yet from his side?
Speaker 1: The we gave him a deadline for the response, which will be, either the end of this week or next week. And then at that point, if there has not been a response, at that point we will issue a subpoena for him.
@SenRandPaul - Senator Rand Paul
Never forget that Fauci lied to all of us. We’re still focused on this in the Senate, glad to see @TulsiGabbard @DrJBhattacharya and @megynkelly aren’t letting this go either!
@MegynKellyShow - The Megyn Kelly Show
"Is it any wonder [Fauci] sought a preemptive pardon?" @TulsiGabbard reveals new information is coming connecting gain-of-function research to COVID origins. @MegynKelly's exclusive interview out tomorrow morning - subscribe: https://www.youtube.com/c/MegynKelly?sub_confirmation=1 https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-megyn-kelly-show/id1532976305 https://open.spotify.com/show/0awxEJH88Xur0GHXuteBLw?si=UYTJl1P6TQippmzAu3f69g&nd=1
Video Transcript AI Summary
The Chinese State Council Information Office claims COVID originated in the U.S. A special team is investigating COVID's origins, with findings on covid.gov. Work is being done with Jay Bhattacharya and Secretary Kennedy, looking at U.S. funded gain of function research at the Wuhan lab and other biolabs, which has led to health crises.
The goal is to find the specific link between gain of function research and COVID-19. If Peter Daszak's research with the Wuhan lab caused the pandemic, then the U.S. funded it, and Anthony Fauci denied it under oath. Gain of function research is ongoing in biolabs worldwide, like in Ukraine. Warning against U.S. funded biolabs in Ukraine led to accusations of being a Russian asset.
The intelligence community was reluctant to say COVID came from a lab, possibly due to the politicization of intelligence. This politicization dates back to intelligence used to justify the Iraq regime change war.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: On the subject of documents that we'd like to see but haven't, COVID and its origins. Yeah. Sure you saw that just before we sat down tonight, the Chinese State Council Information Office, I don't even wanna know what that is, but it sounds bad. They have determined that COVID came from us, that it's more likely than not that COVID originated in The United States and not in China. I'm wondering whether you have any dispute with that based on what you've seen over here.
The intelligence community has been responsible for trying to figure out in part Yeah.
Speaker 1: How this thing started. So I created a a kind of a special teams group, the director's initiative group that is focused on investigating, a number of the president's top priorities and and the things that the American people really deserve and want to know the truth about. The origins of COVID nineteen is one of them. So they're actively working on that. A lot of the work that's been done is on covid.gov.
Have you had a
Speaker 0: chance to look? Oh, he Trump changed it.
Speaker 1: It's Yeah. Quite great.
Speaker 0: Transformation of the website. Yeah. For anybody watching, if you haven't seen it, check it out. It's the annoying website to which YouTube and all social media used to refer people with Fauci talking points, and now it's been completely Completely reversed.
Speaker 1: So so it's a lot a lot of what's been found is is already there. But the thing that we are working with, Jay Bhattacharya, the new NIH director on, with as well as secretary Kennedy, is looking at the gain of function research that in the case of the Wuhan lab as well as many others many of these other bio labs around the world was actually US funded and leads to this dangerous kind of research that in many examples has resulted in, either a pandemic or some other, major health crisis.
Speaker 0: Specifically because we already know that EcoHealth Alliance was partnering with this Wuhan Lab to create to do gain and function research. That's right. We just have never been able to have somebody say, and it was that exact experiment that led to this COVID bug. But it have have we gotten there? What's the new thing that you're digging in on?
We we are we are working on that with, Jay Bhattacharya and look forward to
Speaker 1: being able to share that, hopefully, very soon. Okay. That that specific Link. Correct. Between the gain of function research and what we saw with COVID nineteen.
Speaker 0: I mean, that would be extraordinary because just so the audience knows, if that's true, if it was Peter Daszak's research with the Wuhan, so called fat lady, that caused this pandemic, then we did fund it. Then Anthony Fauci helped fund the pandemic.
Speaker 1: These things that he denied over and over and over to senator Rand Paul's questioning.
Speaker 0: That's right. Under oath. It it it an under oath. Exactly. So it is
Speaker 1: is it any wonder that he sought a preemptive pardon for anything during a certain period of time, by president Biden before he left office?
Speaker 0: And then strong armed and smeared people like doctor Jay Badajarya, anybody who came out and said, I don't know if that's natural. This actually smacks of lab. And and the reason why this is so important is not just what happened in
Speaker 1: the past. It's because this gain of function research is happening in bio labs around the world. I got attacked, and I think you saw this. We've probably talked about on your show before when I warned against US funded bio labs in Ukraine when the Russia Ukraine war kicked off for this very reason. Who knows what kinds of pathogens are in these labs and if released could create another COVID like pandemic?
And for that, I was called a Russian asset. You're, you know, trumpeting Putin's talking points, all of this nonsense simply for speaking the truth and stating facts that, by the way, are still on US embassy Ukraine's website today about how The US has funded these bio labs in Ukraine. But in order to my point is in order to prevent another COVID like pandemic or another major health incident that could affect us in in the world, we have to we have to end this gain of function research and provide the evidence that shows exactly why and how it's in our best interest, the American people's best interest to bring about an end to it.
Speaker 0: Can I just ask you one other question on that? Why did the intelligence community why were they so reluctant to just say that? You know, under Joe Biden, it was it was split. The FBI eventually said, well, we kinda think it was the lab, and Department of Energy said lab. But then the other agencies were like, no.
We think more natural origin. Long past the point when it did not look like natural origin. They tested 80 or 90,000 animals. They never found this version of the virus. So what was going on with the intel community there?
Speaker 1: You know, it's a it's a good question, and I don't have a specific answer to it. But I wanna point to the contrast of how, in some cases, they are very unwilling to come to express a view or a certain opinion on something. And in other cases, even if they don't have decisive or conclusive evidence per se, they're very quickly to come to an assumption. And this this gets to the real heart of the challenge here and the problems that we've seen is the politicization of intelligence to meet a certain objective or to influence a certain policy. And that that is what has been the problem.
This goes all the way back to why this organization was founded when you look at the so called intelligence that really was used to spur the Iraq regime change war. And look at what that has cost our country Mhmm. In lives, in treasure. Look at what it's cost the world. Look at what what Iraq is today, now essentially a a proxy of Iran when Iraq that that would not have happened had that regime change war, not occurred.
Speaker 0: Tariff wars, start up stubborn inflation, no wonder gold has been routinely hitting all time highs. And volatile markets like the one we have now, don't sit on the sidelines with your head in the sand. You can take control and safeguard your savings. This is why so many Americans today are turning to Birch Gold Group. They have helped tens of thousands convert an existing IRA or four zero one into an IRA in physical gold.
Is it time for you to hedge against economic instability with gold? To learn how to own physical physical gold in a tax sheltered account, just text m k to the number 989898. will send you a free, no obligation info kit. Again, text MK to the number 989898. With an a plus rating with the Better Business Bureau and countless five star reviews, Birch Gold has helped so many protect their savings with gold.
It took us decades to get into the tangled mess they're trying to unpack now in DC. How long is it gonna take to get out of it and at what cost? Text MK to 989898 today. Thanks so much for watching. If you like what you just saw, hit the subscribe button for more clips and full episodes.
Megyn Kelly
The Megyn Kelly Show is your home for open, honest and provocative conversations with the most interesting and important political, legal and cultural figure...
youtube.com
The Megyn Kelly Show on Apple Podcasts
The Megyn Kelly Show is your home for open, honest and provocative conversations with the most interesting and important political, legal and cultural figures today. No BS. No agenda. And no fear.
podcasts.apple.com
Page not found
open.spotify.com
@SenRandPaul - Senator Rand Paul
I am about to take the Senate floor to speak out against tariffs and stand up for the principle of no taxation without representation. Tune in—this is one you won’t want to miss.
reSee.it AI Summary
I believe we need to move past the fear mongering. As far as I know, no one in the Trump administration has suggested using Social Security funds for anything else. This idea is not only false but also spreads unnecessary fear. We should clarify that no one is advocating for this.
@SenRandPaul - Senator Rand Paul
We should try to put aside some of the fear mongering. To my knowledge, no one in the Trump administration has advocated for taking Social Security money and using it for any other purpose. So that's a hypothetical that is not only untrue, it is promoting fear. We should be telling everyone in America, no one's promoting that. No one's asking for that.
Video Transcript AI Summary
Let's put aside the fear mongering. No one in the Trump administration advocated using Social Security money for other purposes.
The other side calls funding pauses illegal, but I don't think pausing spending for a month constitutes impoundment. This is a separation of powers issue. I voted against repurposing money for the wall before, and I share some concerns.
When money was stopped at USAID, $2 million for sex changes in Guatemala was found. If the other side wants to argue for that, they can. Instead, they attack Elon Musk, who wasn't elected, unlike the President who appointed these officials. Shouldn't an elected president get to execute their policy? The bureaucracy often resists change, favoring more spending. We should debate wasteful spending, like millions on girl-centric climate change in Brazil or trans-related projects in other countries. I want permanence, and I'll likely say to send the money back to Congress for a vote.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Probably we should try to put aside some of the fear mongering. To my knowledge, no one in the Trump administration has advocated for taking Social Security money and using it for another purpose. So that's a hypothetical that is not only untrue, it is promoting fear. We should be telling everyone in America no one's promoting that. No one's asking for that.
There are some debatable points, though. Nobody's advocating it from the post office either. Plus, the post office has no money. They're 9,500,000,000.0 in the hole every year now. But there are some real questions.
The other side has called these illegal funding freezes. Well, I don't think pausing spending for a month was what we've had so far will be interpreted even as impoundment. There is a debate when something is actually impounded. I think if you went through a fiscal year and you get beyond a fiscal year and you haven't spent money, it's going to be classified by anybody as impoundment. There will be a legal debate over it at that time.
But there'll be a a legal discussion, and this is a separation of powers issue. It's an important one. I actually voted against re repurposing money for the wall, for building the wall last time because I thought it was congressional perspective. So I I share some of the concerns, but I think it's unfair to leap to sort of conclusions of this is illegal or this is, you know, being done and it's democracy's in turmoil and the world's going to end. I mean, when they stopped the money flowing at USAID, they found $2,000,000 for sex changes in Guatemala.
And if the other side wants to stand up and argue that that's really wrong, that we're gonna stop $2,000,000 for sex changes in Guatemala, they can. But instead, they just say everything is illegal, and Elon is terrible, and Elon has all this data. Elon wasn't elected. These gentlemen weren't elected either. Their bosses won't be elected.
Trump was elected. He's appointing them. So nobody in the administration's elected other than the president. They're all going to be appointed. But there's a question when you elect a president, should they get to execute their policy?
Do we elect a change? Or is there some sort of bureaucracy that's so huge and inert that we can't move it? And that's what many of us have complained about for for a long time. Some call it the deep state, and the other side says, oh, they're all conniving. Well, no.
The deep state is essentially the bureaucracy that is unmovable and has a perspective. And their perspective is skewed towards spending more money, not less. You know, we should debate not whether Elon Musk is is Satan, but maybe whether or not, you know, we should spend $3,000,000 out of state department state department funds on girl centric climate change in Brazil. You know, whether you spend $30,000 on a trans opera in Colombia, Twenty Five Thousand Dollars on a trans comic book in Peru, Six Hundred And Sixty Thousand on microaggressions among obese Latinx. When you say that, most people don't even know what that means.
And most people are Hispanic or just, frankly, offended by the whole thing, whatever it's supposed to mean. All these racial sort of things and sort of, you know, left wing sort of causes, we can debate that, whether we should keep spending money on it. But we wouldn't know it had Elon Musk not stopped things. We wouldn't even know it was being spent. So I, for one, think scrutiny is good, but I'm not a blank check.
I've told both of the nominees today, I've told Russ Vote, when it comes down to a year from now, if the money's being impounded, I'm probably gonna be saying, send it back and let Congress vote on it. And it's also a way of making permanence. I love all the stuff he's finding, all the waste. I want it to be permanent. I want it to have real, you know, value, and we get that through a decision.
Won't be easy, but it can be done through simple majority. And my guess is that the minority party, while they're squawking about Elon looking at their Social Security number or something, they are probably not any of them interested in cutting the $2,000,000 for sex changes in Guatemala. That'll be part of a rescission package, and my guess is there won't be anybody on the Democrat party that will vote for rescission of any kind of cutting. If they can if we give them a billion dollars for an aircraft carrier and they can do it for 800,000,000, shouldn't we be happy to get the 200,000,000 back, you know, and do a rescission package? I will say publicly though, given it back to the taxpayer, when we have a $2,000,000,000,000 deficit, let's fill up the hole of the $2,000,000,000,000 deficit, and then we can talk about sending some back to the people.
But I think it's premature to send any of that money back. It's also premature to say it's saved until we actually have a a spending bill. I think next in line, we have senator Gallego.
@SenRandPaul - Senator Rand Paul
ICYMI, I’m requesting to audit the gold at Fort Knox… cc: @elonmusk https://t.co/TG9AgbDhjc
@SenRandPaul - Senator Rand Paul
The Democrats were invited to bring a witness—they chose not to. Maybe because USAID’s spending is so embarrassing. Thanks to the courageous president @realDonaldTrump (and advice from @elonmusk & others), we’re finally exposing it. https://t.co/oUgmTZ0aiB
Video Transcript AI Summary
Democrats were invited to participate and bring witnesses, but they chose not to, likely because USAID's spending is indefensible, like $2 million for sex change surgeries in Guatemala and $3 million for girl-centric climate change initiatives. If USAID has unspent funds, can the President impound them?
Auditing spending is essential oversight. We're uncovering waste, like $4.8 million for social media influencers in Ukraine. Forcing a social agenda, like LGBT issues, on conservative countries harms diplomacy. We're finding this waste because we have a president with the courage to oversee USAID.
The CFO of FEMA was fired for spending $54 million on luxury hotels for illegal aliens. The Lincoln Riley's killer was put up in a luxury hotel in New York. Can the President impound funds, or should we rescind them through Congress? A pause in funding for an audit is just good government.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Thank you. The accusation or criticism has been made that this is an unserious hearing full of conspiracy theorists. Well, you know, the Democrats were asked to participate like they always are the same way we were when we were in the minority. They could have brought a witness. They chose not to even bring a witness.
I can't conjecture as to why, but maybe it's because it's so embarrassing, the stuff that USAID is spending their money on. Who could possibly be against ending $2,000,000 for sex chain surgeries in Guatemala? I mean, who wants to defend that? I haven't heard anybody yet defend the the waste and malfeasance that's going over there. $3,000,000 for girl centric climate change.
Maybe there's not a witness here. Maybe it's not serious, but I don't hear anybody explaining why we should continue to do that. Now there is a legal question. There is a legal question. If there's $40,000,000,000 in USAID and they don't spend it at all and it just sits there, can the president impound it?
This is a real question and it may come to that. But I don't think any court is going to find that the executive branch cannot pause in audit spending. I mean, to crassly say and just to jump this, it's illegal, it's unlawful, it's a tragedy, it's constitutional chaos. Well, auditing spending is what government should do. It's it's the traditional oversight that hasn't been done in a generation.
That's why we're finding this stuff. It's been creeping up for a generation. Dollars 4,800,000.0 for social media influencers in Ukraine. I mean, if people want to defend that, step forward and defend it. We are finding waste and malfeasance.
You also have to realize that when you have a social agenda and your social agenda is, you know, LGBT, well, when you take that to a conservative country that has religious problems with that and you want to foist it on them and fly flags, what ends up happening is that doesn't increase diplomacy, that actually goes against diplomacy. I don't care what people's views are on any of these subjects. You can have any view on LGBT, but it shouldn't be part of foreign policy to force this on everybody around the world. It just isn't part of government and should never be part of government. But we're only finding this out because we have a president with the courage, including the advice of Elon Musk, including the advice of a lot of us who have been saying for years, we need to look at USAID and make sure that they aren't committing fraud.
Look, this morning, the CFO of FEMA was fired because she's spending $54,000,000 on luxury hotels for illegal aliens. My goodness. There's a lot of Americans struggling to find work. Lincoln Riley's killer, we flew him and put him up in a luxury hotel in New York. He was there for a few months.
We spent all of our money on his meals, and then we flew him to Atlanta. And then he drifted over to Athens and then he killed Blake and Riley. Most Americans think that that's crazy and we shouldn't be doing it, but we are only finding it out because for once, we have a president with the courage to say no to go over there and put a padlock on the door and take the name down. But ultimately, there will be a legal question. Can he impound it or will he have to come back to congress?
I actually frankly think the better way is spend about 30,000,000,000 and send 10,000,000,000 back, and we do a rescission. There is a method for doing that, and I hope that is what is done. But even on the impoundment question, there are questions exactly, and I don't think it's ever made it all the way to the Supreme Court. There is court precedent on it, but we haven't gotten to that. A pause in funding is an impoundment.
A pause in funding to do an audit is just good government, frankly. The question I have for the panel is this, though.
Speaker 1: Mr. Chairman, may I just inquire?
Speaker 0: Sure.
Speaker 1: Because the Chairman mentioned that we don't have a minority witness, I would suggest, and speaking out of turn here, because the ranking member isn't here and I don't purport to speak for it.
Speaker 0: We're docking your time for next week. I'm just kidding.
Speaker 1: But, I would respectfully suggest that we have Paul Martin, who was fired as inspector general, come before us.
Speaker 0: We didn't deny any witnesses. We you your your side did not put forward a witness. We did not deny any witnesses. You you didn't put forward a witness. So but I just think it's disingenuous to
Speaker 1: Well, Brad, this is a
Speaker 0: personal attack on me to call this unserious and a conspiracy a bunch of conspiracy. It's an attack on our witnesses as well. That is a pejorative, and that's name calling. Alright? You can you're welcome to object to things they say and have facts to counter them.
But to call this, an unserious hearing of conspiracy
Speaker 1: I never used that term, mister chairman.
Speaker 0: Well, you said it wasn't serious. You said the hearing wasn't serious.
Speaker 1: I I
Speaker 0: But the thing is y'all chose not to participate in it, so that's on you.
Speaker 1: Maybe we can maybe we can have a second hearing because this is such an important
Speaker 0: We could have a dozen on this. There's so much to talk about. But anyway, I think we ought to be, you know, I'm not criticizing your ranking member for being unserious or conspiracy theory. He has his opinions. We make our arguments both sides.
But if we call names and say, oh, well, your ideas are conspiracy theory, that's a pejorative and that doesn't get us anywhere, frankly. And, because it's also dangerous in the sense that many people who are then saying, oh, it's a conspiracy theory. Well, government should suppress that. This is what went on. We had 23 scientists come forward in Lancet and say that the possibility that the virus came from a lab in Wuhan was a conspiracy theory.
And then government promoted back to Twitter and others and met with them on a weekly basis trying to suppress. Facebook for a year and a half said that ideas like mine that it could have come from the lab were to be suppressed. Michael Shellenberger, why don't you, if you wouldn't mind, responding to how the government was involved with trying to suppress speech that you found out through Twitter files?
Speaker 2: Well, sure. And, also, I I would think whenever you hear somebody accuse somebody of a conspiracy theory, I think you should you should consider that they are themselves spreading disinformation.
@SenRandPaul - Senator Rand Paul
Today, at @RobertKennedyJr's HELP hearing, I made it clear that we need medical freedom. There's such a belief in submission. "Submit to the government. Do what you're told." There is no discussion. There ought to be a debate. RFK Jr. has my vote. MAHA! https://t.co/F0AnthzFHf
Video Transcript AI Summary
The vaccine discussion is oversimplified. People distrust the government because they recommend a hepatitis B vaccine for a one-day-old, despite it being spread through drug use and sexual transmission. I'm pro-vaccine, but the COVID vaccine wasn't a one-size-fits-all solution. The risk difference between elderly and children was immense; no healthy child in America died from COVID.
There should be room for debate. Ask young mothers if they want to vaccinate their babies on day one. There's no clear science saying not to, but we also don't know what causes autism, even though there's no proof vaccines cause it. We should be open-minded about causes for diseases like autism and schizophrenia. Science is not absolute, and we should be humble in our conclusions.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Paul. You know, I think the discussion over vaccines is so oversimplified and dumbed down that we never really get to real truths. And it's why people up here are so separated from real people at home. So we talk about hepatitis b. It's a terrible disease.
It could lead to liver failure, as the chairman said. But the reason you have distrust from people at home, why they don't believe anything you say, they don't believe government at all, is you're telling your my kid to take a hepatitis b vaccine when he's one day old. You get it through drug use and sexually transmitted. That's how you get hepatitis b. But you're telling me my kid has to take it at one day old.
You're not. That's not science. And so every person with a bit of common sense, even people who don't resist vaccines, I vaccinated all my kids. I believe vaccines are one of the modern miracles beyond all pale. The Speckled Monster is a great book about the introduction of the smallpox vaccine in 1720 into our country.
All miracles. But I'm not a one size fits all. It's not all or nothing. I chose to wait on my hepatitis b vaccine, and we did it when they went to school. Does that make me an awful person?
Does that make me an anti vaxxer because I questioned the government dictate of whether I do it? And I'm not speaking for anybody else. I'm only speaking for myself. But for goodness sakes, let's have an honest debate about these things. The COVID vaccine.
If you ask me my opinion, the reporters run up and down the aisle, and they say, you still anti vaccine? No. I'm pro vaccine. But on the COVID vaccine and on the COVID illness, there was a thousand fold or more difference between the elderly and children. If you don't acknowledge that, you're committing malpractice.
You're showing your ignorance. If you say a six month old must be mandated to get it, the science is not there. So I'll just blather about the science says this and the science says that. No. It doesn't.
The science actually shows that no healthy child in America died from COVID. Look it up. No healthy child died from COVID. And so the thing is is that it's a thousand fold greater. So if you ask me my advice as a physician, if you were 65 or older or overweight and some other conditions, I would have said, hell, yes.
I'd take the COVID vaccine. The risks of the disease were real and much greater than the vaccine. But if you ask me, should my healthy six month old get it? See, these are the nuances you're unwilling to talk about because there's such a belief in submission. Submit to the government.
Do what you're told. There is no discussion. There ought to be a debate. You're not gonna let him have the debate because you're just gonna criticize and say, it is this and admit to it or we're not going to appoint you. But it's more complicated than that.
And this is why people distrust government because you're unwilling to have these conversations. And I go home. Ask your Democrat young mothers, your Republican young mothers if they're vaccinating their kid for hepatitis b, and they're like, well, do I have to do it on day one as this precious little baby? Is there science to say you shouldn't do it? Probably not, but it's my kid.
You know, it's like, I there isn't clear cut science saying not to. But on autism, there's no good science of anything to show what causes autism. We don't know. It's a profound disease. I know many moms here and dads who have kids with autism.
I know them personally. I've met their kids. But the thing is is they saw their kids developing completely normal, maybe speaking a hundred words go to no words at about 15 of age. Now there isn't proof. There isn't proof that the vaccines cause it.
That's true. There isn't proof that it cause it, but we don't know what causes it yet. So shouldn't we be at least open minded? We take 72 vaccines. Could it be?
I don't know. But we shouldn't just close the door and say we're no longer because we believe so much in submission, we're not gonna have an open mind to study these things. And so it's sort of this crazy notion. Schizophrenia, I would put in the same notion. You have a kid who's completely normal to 18 or 19, and their brain goes haywire.
How does that happen? It's the most bizarre disease. Shouldn't we be open? Could it be our food? It might be vaccines.
It might be our food, but autism's more common. I don't know about the schizophrenia statistics, but autism's more common. Shouldn't we wanna be open minded? Instead, we're so close minded and we're so consensus driven that the science says this. Well, science doesn't say anything.
Science is a dispute, and ten years from now, we could all be wrong. We were told in the beginning, twenty years ago, they did this enormous study and they said, everybody over 50 should take an aspirin. I thought, well, that's a pretty good idea. It makes sense. But you know what?
Twenty years later, they measured it, and they found if you had no heart disease and you were taking aspirin, your chance of dying from a brain bleed or from a stomach bleed were greater than the risk of heart disease. If you have heart disease, they still say take an aspirin. If you don't, they've changed your mind twenty years later. But would you have all said I was crazy and I should no longer be in public discourse if I had said twenty years ago, I don't feel like taking an aspirin. I'm I ride my bike all the time.
I'm afraid it might hit my head. But that's what a country is about. It's what dissent is about. So just ask you to look at the larger picture and give the guy a break who says, I just wanna follow the science where it leads without presupposition. I think really what we have up here is presupposition.
You've already concluded. It's absolute that autism isn't caused by it. We don't know what causes autism, so we should be more humble in what we say. Sorry. I didn't get to our questions.
@SenRandPaul - Senator Rand Paul
USPS should account for the “uncontrollable costs” in their budgeting and stop coming to Congress to bail them out. https://t.co/oMPhvQf4TX
Video Transcript AI Summary
Milton Friedman once noted that government management often leads to shortages. This applies to the U.S. Postal Service, which was promised a $107 billion bailout in 2020 to achieve financial stability by 2031. However, losses have increased, with $6.5 billion lost in 2023 and projected losses of $9.5 billion in 2024. Instead of cutting costs like a private business would, the USPS has converted over 190,000 workers into higher-paid career roles, worsening its financial situation. Despite spending billions on electric vehicles and facility upgrades, service has declined. Congress has provided $120 billion in funding over four years, but with national debt exceeding $36 trillion, it's time for meaningful reform at the Postal Service.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Over 40 years ago, Milton Friedman remarked, if you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years, there'd be a shortage of sand. While Friedman was discussing price controls and output restrictions in oil and gas in Dubai, this same logic can be applied to the U. S. Postal Service. In 2020, Congress was promised that a $107,000,000,000 bailout would put the Post Office out of the roll and out of the hole it has been within 3 or 4 years.
We were also told that the USPS operations would break even by 2,031. Postmaster DeJoyce sat in front of our committee in August of that year and stated, I am absolutely convinced that with some help from Congress and our regulator, we can do it and that there is a bright future ahead for the post office. I argued against giving more taxpayer money to the postal service, suggesting that private business would be better at managing ongoing costs by making the necessary cuts. Unfortunately, my concerns have proven to be correct. The Postal Service's, Delivering for America initiative, the bailout, was expected to yield quick results.
However, the post office lost 6,500,000,000 in 2023 and is set to lose 9,500,000,000 in 2024. That doesn't sound like progress. They were losing $1,000,000,000 a quarter, now they're losing $2,000,000,000 a quarter. Only in Washington can someone point to losing $2,000,000,000 a quarter as a success. Given the continued financial shortfalls, it is entirely nonsensical for the USPS to convert more than 190,000 service workers into career roles since October 2020.
If this were a private business, you'd be doing the opposite. If you were a unionized, corporation in one state, what do they do? They actually move to another state and open in a nonunionized in a right to work state, and that's how they continue to exist. Corporations don't add to their misery by adding and increasing their labor costs. These career roles effectively government career roles effectively allow those workers to make 50% more per hour and create decades of benefits responsibilities that will make breaking even in the future even more difficult.
When we had pension problems in Kentucky, we did the opposite. We ended up changing from a pension, we went to a contribution plan and then we gradually are fixing it. It's still taking a long time because we had the old obligations, but we gradually figured out how to go to a new plan where we wouldn't be stuck with all these pensions. These positions are of insourcing jobs that were provided at lower cost before by private partners who are increasing the cost of the post office. During the Postal Service Reform Act, I argued that no funding should be given to USPS without changes to its labor practices and cost.
Instead, no labor changes were made and now Americans are left holding the bag of an ever more bloated Postal Service. The Postal Service has tried to explain away these bad numbers due to the costs that USPS cannot control. But the service is spending $9,600,000,000 on electric delivery vehicles and spending nearly 40,000,000,000 over 10 years to convert and build certain facilities into hubs that so far have resulted in worse delivery and services. In order to keep making these infrastructure updates, the Postal Service has asked to raise its $15,000,000,000 borrowing limit with the Treasury Department. Hardly sounds like a success.
Private sector companies deal with uncontrolled costs all the time, including the same factors USPS faces like inflation and they find a way to provide for their owners and shareholders, but they don't do it by adding more union employment. USPS would count for the uncontrollable cost in their budget by and and stop coming to Congress. You know, you guys should try to fix the problems that keep coming back and asking for more and more. This hasn't stopped Congress, though, from throwing even more money at the postal service. For those counting, that's a 120,000,000,000 in funding and relief in the past 4 years alone.
While 120,000,000,000 is already an astounding number on its own, when you consider the sum relative to our nation's dismal fiscal condition, it suddenly becomes reckless. We're over $36,000,000,000,000 in debt. It's time to do something different. What we're not seeing is anything different at the post office, and I, for 1, say it's about time we have some reform.
@SenRandPaul - Senator Rand Paul
Today I joined @Americarpts to talk about the origins of COVID. The LEAST democrats can do is support a request for government records concerning gain-of-function research. We must leave no stone unturned in the search for answers!
Video Transcript AI Summary
Kentucky Senator Rand Paul and the speaker agree that there is a mountain of evidence pointing to the lab leak theory of COVID-19 origins. They argue that there is no evidence linking the virus to animals, as no animal host has been found and animal handlers do not have antibodies to the virus. They also highlight that COVID-19 readily infects humans but not animals like bats, suggesting it was pre-adapted for humans. The speaker criticizes the lack of cooperation from Democrats in requesting records from the US government. They believe the lab leak was likely an accident and call for increased regulation of gain-of-function research. They also criticize Dr. Anthony Fauci for his judgment errors and suggest he should testify under subpoena.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Our next guest was a proponent of that theory all along. Kentucky senator Rand Paul serves on the foreign relations and homeland security committees. He heard the former DNI say it there. There's nothing that ties this to nature, which is exactly the opposite of what doctor Fauci was saying 3 years ago, and nothing tied this to the lab leak. So now you got the former DNI, you've got the Senate report, you've got the Department of Energy, and you've got the FBI all pointed to the lab.
Does this leave any doubt in your mind?
Speaker 1: No. And I think he's exactly right. If you weigh the evidence on either side, There's a mountain of evidence on the side that this leaked from a lab, and there's really no evidence that it came from animals. The only thing we know historically is that viruses like SARS one back in 2003 and 4, it did come from animals. So did MERS, the one that came from camels.
But they found an animal host within a couple of months each time in the past. This time, there's been no animal host. They tested 80,000 animals, not only in the wet market, but across China. And typically, if it came from animals, you also find that the animal handlers have antibodies to the virus as well. They don't have that.
The other telltale sign here that is strongly suggestive that came from a lab is If you take COVID nineteen from a human and you try to infect animals, no animals readily take it that it could have come from. Basically, bats don't accept COVID nineteen. It won't grow in their brain or in their kidneys. So here you have a virus that seems to have been Readily adaptable, pre adapted for humans, and all the evidence is pointing there, and yet we're still getting reluctance. I have Letters that I've asked 5 different Democrat chairman to sign on for records released from our government, not the Chinese government, From our government, and I haven't gotten 1 Democrat to sign a letter just to request records yet.
Speaker 0: So senator Roger Marshall, in the senate report that was released, yesterday, tray traces back the breadcrumbs. He says that, evidence shows that the Chinese were working on a vaccine as early as November 2019. At that point, nobody had heard about COVID. We didn't hear about it until the end of January, toward the end of January of 2020. He also suggests that this was probably an accident that it was a result of incompetence and inadequate containment.
Do you think if this if this did leak from a laboratory, that it was an accident or could it be, as some people have suggested, intention? I
Speaker 1: think it's in all likelihood an accident. And this is why I've So they asked the Chinese government. I've met with their ambassador's representative here and asked them, go ahead and tell the truth. Let us know what happened because if it was an accident, you were trying to develop a vaccine and it got loose, just admit the accident because it will help us in trying to prevent these things from happening again, and it doesn't happen just in China. We've had accidents here in our country, and you're right.
A number of groups have looked at this and have assessed that it did come from the lab. The FBI, Department of Energy, the report that, senator Marshall talked about Was an 18 month investigation by the health committee, team that looked into every nook and cranny. And one of the things they relied on Was information that the Trump administration declassified, and that's it. 3 workers in the Wuhan lab got sick with COVID like symptoms in November 2019. The Chinese government could reveal their testing of these individuals, but it was never revealed and hasn't been revealed.
There's actually people from the lab That were active at the time who were missing and can't be found. So there's a lot of questions that we have, and I wish they'd be forthcoming with the answers. But we know enough to know that in all likelihood, it came to the lab, and we should be regulating this dangerous research. This gain of function research should be severely circumscribed and restricted in our country. And today, not 1 Democrat has stepped forward to help us with this.
Speaker 0: As you senator pointed out many times in in hearings there in the senate, 2 figures loom large in the question of COVID origins, doctor Peter Dazsak of the ECHO Health Alliance and doctor Anthony Fauci, formerly of the NIH. Is there any more clarity on what was really going on there?
Speaker 1: I think we know this, that doctor Fauci early on approved of this, that he had to evade existing regulations. The existing regulations said that this kind of research should go before a pandemic pathogen committee in order to determine whether it should continue or be funded whether it was safe enough. Only doctor Fauci had the ability to go around that committee and exempt this research from scrutiny. That was one of the worst judgments made in modern medical history and may well be the judgment call, the mistake, not on purpose, But the mistake that doctor Fauci made that allowed millions of people to die around the world because he made the judgment error that the Chinese were Reliable and honest and would try to help us if there's a lag leak, and he also made the judgment error that this doing this kind of dangerous research. He said at one point in time, somebody asked him.
They said, what if a pandemic occurs through an accident? And he said it would be worthwhile because of the knowledge. That is a judgment error that will go down in history as one of the worst judgments ever and he does bear responsibility. And, ultimately, I think the house will bring him back under subpoena And he will be made to testify. The problem is is that he seems to remember everything about the past when he's on a jolly good fellow interview with, you know, the mainstream networks.
But if he's ever challenged, he can't recall, he can't recall, he can't recall. But he still needs to come in and be asked the hard questions.
Speaker 0: Alright.
Speaker 1: I think there's still a lot of
Speaker 0: layers of this onion yet to be revealed. Senator Rand Paul, doctor Paul, thanks for being with us. Appreciate it.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Alright.