So before Joe Biden left office, what did he do well? He pardoned a whole bunch of people, including his family. You know, the guy who told us he was never involved in his son's business dealings, who obviously lied to us because ten percent went to the big guy. But it looks like his whole family was involved as well. But who else did he pardon? He pardoned Anthony Fauci. Why would Anthony Fauci need a pardon? Might you ask? I figured, after seeing the news, we would have the guy who asked Fauci these kinds of questions during Senate committee hearings.

So before Joe Biden left office, what did he do well? He pardoned a whole bunch of people, including his family. You know, the guy who told us he was never involved in his son's business dealings, who obviously lied to us because ten percent went to the big guy. But it looks like his whole family was involved as well. But who else did he pardon? He pardoned Anthony Fauci. Why would Anthony Fauci need a pardon? Might you ask? I figured, after seeing the news, we would have the guy who asked Fauci these kinds of questions during Senate committee hearings.

Listen, you've been vaccinated and you parade around in two masks for show. No, you can't get it again, there's almost there's virtually zero percent chance you're going to get it. And you're telling people them that have had the vaccine who have immunity. You're defying everything we know about immunity by telling people to wear a mask of in vaccinating. Instead, you should be saying there is no science to say we're going to have a problem from the large number of people vaccinated. You want to get rid of vaccine hesitancy, filming wearing their mask after they get the vaccine.

Listen, you've been vaccinated and you parade around in two masks for show. No, you can't get it again, there's almost there's virtually zero percent chance you're going to get it. And you're telling people them that have had the vaccine who have immunity. You're defying everything we know about immunity by telling people to wear a mask of in vaccinating. Instead, you should be saying there is no science to say we're going to have a problem from the large number of people vaccinated. You want to get rid of vaccine hesitancy, filming wearing their mask after they get the vaccine.

You want people to get.

You want people to get.

The vaccine, give him a reward instead of telling them that the nanny state's going to be there for three more years and you've got to wear a mask forever.

The vaccine, give him a reward instead of telling them that the nanny state's going to be there for three more years and you've got to wear a mask forever.

People don't want to hear it.

People don't want to hear it.

There's no science behind it.

There's no science behind it.

Well, let me just state for the record that masks are not theater. Masks are protective, and.

Well, let me just state for the record that masks are not theater. Masks are protective, and.

We have community there theater. If you already have immunity, you're wearing a mask to give comfort to others. You're not wearing a mask because of any science.

We have community there theater. If you already have immunity, you're wearing a mask to give comfort to others. You're not wearing a mask because of any science.

So you know the voice, that's Senator ram Paul. Who better to have this conversation about why Anthony Fauci would need to be pardoned than him. I'm also going to get his take on President Trump reinstating or unvaccinated military heroes. Look, we still don't know the full extent of vaccine injuries in this country, you know, will we ever know? Is there a way to remove the liability protection for these vaccine manufacturers. I'm going to get Rampaul on that as well. He's also the chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, so we'll talk to him about what's ahead over these next four years.

So you know the voice, that's Senator ram Paul. Who better to have this conversation about why Anthony Fauci would need to be pardoned than him. I'm also going to get his take on President Trump reinstating or unvaccinated military heroes. Look, we still don't know the full extent of vaccine injuries in this country, you know, will we ever know? Is there a way to remove the liability protection for these vaccine manufacturers. I'm going to get Rampaul on that as well. He's also the chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, so we'll talk to him about what's ahead over these next four years.

For him.

For him.

What's the biggest priorities on his list as chairman. Lastly, we'll talk to him about something as Dad said back in the nineteen eighties, Listen, the FBI.

What's the biggest priorities on his list as chairman. Lastly, we'll talk to him about something as Dad said back in the nineteen eighties, Listen, the FBI.

Is not a perfect institution, and they've also been known to violate civil liberties. They run sting operations, and of course they spy on sences. I think of what the FBI did with Martin Luther King, which was strictly an unconstitutional act to develop all this information on a lot of private citizens where there's no threat. It was used as a political weapon and we all know that. I mean Jay or Hoover used to hold the evidence and he could intimidate a politician quite frequently.

Is not a perfect institution, and they've also been known to violate civil liberties. They run sting operations, and of course they spy on sences. I think of what the FBI did with Martin Luther King, which was strictly an unconstitutional act to develop all this information on a lot of private citizens where there's no threat. It was used as a political weapon and we all know that. I mean Jay or Hoover used to hold the evidence and he could intimidate a politician quite frequently.

So what can President Trump and this Congress do about the FBI? All of that and more was Senator ram Paul. But before we get to Senator Ram Paul. At Wired a Fish Coffee, they believe in more than just a good cup of coffee. They believe in values, hard work, faith stewardship. That's why twenty five percent of every purchase goes back to causes that matter, eighteen percent supports faith based initiatives, and seven percent helps conservation and clean water projects. Wired to Fish Coffee is fair trade sourced, ensuring ethical practices and supporting hard working farmers. Every sip offers rich, bold flavor with a smooth finish, no bitterness, just the way coffee should be. So why not make your coffee count. Head over to Wired Tofishcoffee dot com. That's Wired the number two Fishcoffee dot com. Don't forget to use the code Lisa for ten percent off your first order. Together we can brew a better tomorrow. So, Senator Rampaul, I always love having you on the show. I appreciate you being here. So when I saw the news that Joe Biden pardoned Anthony Fauci, I thought to myself, I need to have Senator Rampaul on the show. So why did Joe Biden pardon Anthony Fauci.

So what can President Trump and this Congress do about the FBI? All of that and more was Senator ram Paul. But before we get to Senator Ram Paul. At Wired a Fish Coffee, they believe in more than just a good cup of coffee. They believe in values, hard work, faith stewardship. That's why twenty five percent of every purchase goes back to causes that matter, eighteen percent supports faith based initiatives, and seven percent helps conservation and clean water projects. Wired to Fish Coffee is fair trade sourced, ensuring ethical practices and supporting hard working farmers. Every sip offers rich, bold flavor with a smooth finish, no bitterness, just the way coffee should be. So why not make your coffee count. Head over to Wired Tofishcoffee dot com. That's Wired the number two Fishcoffee dot com. Don't forget to use the code Lisa for ten percent off your first order. Together we can brew a better tomorrow. So, Senator Rampaul, I always love having you on the show. I appreciate you being here. So when I saw the news that Joe Biden pardoned Anthony Fauci, I thought to myself, I need to have Senator Rampaul on the show. So why did Joe Biden pardon Anthony Fauci.

You don't typically pardon innocent people, So I don't know. I think history's going to look harshly on him. Harshly on Anthony Falci's accepting the pardon. There actually is some Supreme Court doctrine that says acceptance of a pardon is accepting guilt. It's kind of hard to know what he's guilty of, since the pardon just preemptively pardons him for anything, you know, murder, rape, assault, you name it. He's pardoned for anything that happened between twenty fourteen and about two weeks ago. But really what he's being pardoned for is his culpability with relationship to the pandemic and to the money that funded the lab work in Wuhan that we think to the pandemic. And this still is being investigated. And one of the upsides to this is one, he's not going to escape history's judgment because of his pardon. He will be judged harshly by history. But two, if we do need to bring him in for questioning, he can no longer use the Fifth Amendment. He can't say fears self incrimination. They won't answer the questions, but our plan to bring him in and will depend on what we find. There's some very specific conversations that we want to hear about the research in Wuhan had to be approved by somebody we want to see. We know there's a meeting that happened, and they won't send us the contents of a meeting. If we get the deliberations, we want to know who is at the meeting. But then most importantly, after that meeting. Why didn't did the research in Muhan not go to the safety committee? There's a safety committee set up in twenty seventeen. It was supposed to see dangerous research. Why do they bypass it? Who made the decision? Was that decision ultimately approved by Anthony Fauci? So there is a or Francis Collins. We're going to find that out. We have been steadfastly stiff stiff armed for about three or four years on this. The NIH is more secretive than the CIA, and when they won't show you something, you start to wonder what it is. And through freedom of information, we discovered that these meetings exist. They call them Duel Use Research of Concerns SPLASH GAIN a function meeting and we know that the funding to go to the Wuhan lad was discussed, but we have not been given any of the discussion. Who is at the meeting and who made the final approval. We're going to get to the bottom of that though. I think the new administration is going to help us. But I also now have subpoena power in my committee. This is new. This is the first time the chairman's had subpoena power and I've issued fourteen subpoenas to fourteen different agencies, and we're beginning to get documents. I don't have a HINGO report yet on the documents, but we plan on revealing all of them. There's no reason to keep anything secret at all needs to be given to the public.

You don't typically pardon innocent people, So I don't know. I think history's going to look harshly on him. Harshly on Anthony Falci's accepting the pardon. There actually is some Supreme Court doctrine that says acceptance of a pardon is accepting guilt. It's kind of hard to know what he's guilty of, since the pardon just preemptively pardons him for anything, you know, murder, rape, assault, you name it. He's pardoned for anything that happened between twenty fourteen and about two weeks ago. But really what he's being pardoned for is his culpability with relationship to the pandemic and to the money that funded the lab work in Wuhan that we think to the pandemic. And this still is being investigated. And one of the upsides to this is one, he's not going to escape history's judgment because of his pardon. He will be judged harshly by history. But two, if we do need to bring him in for questioning, he can no longer use the Fifth Amendment. He can't say fears self incrimination. They won't answer the questions, but our plan to bring him in and will depend on what we find. There's some very specific conversations that we want to hear about the research in Wuhan had to be approved by somebody we want to see. We know there's a meeting that happened, and they won't send us the contents of a meeting. If we get the deliberations, we want to know who is at the meeting. But then most importantly, after that meeting. Why didn't did the research in Muhan not go to the safety committee? There's a safety committee set up in twenty seventeen. It was supposed to see dangerous research. Why do they bypass it? Who made the decision? Was that decision ultimately approved by Anthony Fauci? So there is a or Francis Collins. We're going to find that out. We have been steadfastly stiff stiff armed for about three or four years on this. The NIH is more secretive than the CIA, and when they won't show you something, you start to wonder what it is. And through freedom of information, we discovered that these meetings exist. They call them Duel Use Research of Concerns SPLASH GAIN a function meeting and we know that the funding to go to the Wuhan lad was discussed, but we have not been given any of the discussion. Who is at the meeting and who made the final approval. We're going to get to the bottom of that though. I think the new administration is going to help us. But I also now have subpoena power in my committee. This is new. This is the first time the chairman's had subpoena power and I've issued fourteen subpoenas to fourteen different agencies, and we're beginning to get documents. I don't have a HINGO report yet on the documents, but we plan on revealing all of them. There's no reason to keep anything secret at all needs to be given to the public.

And do you think with a newly incoming at some point Jay Abaticharia, doctor j Bidcharia at Nih, I assume you'd be helpful with that interning. I mean this is you know, he's he has not approved of the way that Anthony Fauci, you know, the things that he has done, so I would imagine you would get a cooperative partner in Jay Abaticharia.

And do you think with a newly incoming at some point Jay Abaticharia, doctor j Bidcharia at Nih, I assume you'd be helpful with that interning. I mean this is you know, he's he has not approved of the way that Anthony Fauci, you know, the things that he has done, so I would imagine you would get a cooperative partner in Jay Abaticharia.

Yeah, I'm a big fan of Jabatataria followed all of this stuff. I read the Greater Bear Declaration. You know, I followed him throughout the pandemic. He was somebody who I didn't know before the pandemic, but so many of these people came forward that, you know, began to see what they're writing and their reasonableness. Him, Scott Atlas who was in the previous administration, Marty McCarey from John Hopkins. Uh So, I think they all will you know, Marty McCarey at FDA and Jay Batichari at NIH will be approved. I think that they will open the records. They believe in transparency, and they also are like me that I think that there needs to be a legislative fixed. We need something done to make sure that there really is an objective committee looking at this and that one person Anthony Fauci or one person can't bypass the Safety Committee. Ever, again, do.

Yeah, I'm a big fan of Jabatataria followed all of this stuff. I read the Greater Bear Declaration. You know, I followed him throughout the pandemic. He was somebody who I didn't know before the pandemic, but so many of these people came forward that, you know, began to see what they're writing and their reasonableness. Him, Scott Atlas who was in the previous administration, Marty McCarey from John Hopkins. Uh So, I think they all will you know, Marty McCarey at FDA and Jay Batichari at NIH will be approved. I think that they will open the records. They believe in transparency, and they also are like me that I think that there needs to be a legislative fixed. We need something done to make sure that there really is an objective committee looking at this and that one person Anthony Fauci or one person can't bypass the Safety Committee. Ever, again, do.

You think Fauci has perjured himself before? And if called to testify, do you think he would perjure himself Again?

You think Fauci has perjured himself before? And if called to testify, do you think he would perjure himself Again?

I think he's a dissembler and a purser of words, which is a nice way of saying he's a liar. But basically what he does is he comes in and he says, well, it's not gain to function because this is the definition of gain of function, so therefore it can't be gain to function. So then we have the acting director of the NIH come in and he says, well, according to the general understanding of gain of function, sure it's gain of function, but according to our specific definition of game function, it's not. We know that the research was so dangerous that one of the reasons ECO health that was working with the Chinese on this got reprimanded is they did not report when it had growth that I believe was a thousandfold greater than it should have been. When that growth wasn't reported, that was evidence of gain of function, and at that point, obviously it would be gain of function. What Anthony Fouche would say is because he's a guy that's going to be you don't last forty years at the top of government without being clever with words. He would say, Well, viruses that aren't already known to be pandemic viruses can't be gain to function because we don't know their pandemic viruses. Which is really kind of insane because they take two viruses, coronaviruses that are more animal viruses, but then when they put them together, they run them through animal cells, they run them through mice that have human lungs, and they do that. They do it over and over again to try to get the virus to mutate towards adapting to grow in human cells. Well, you're creating something that grows in human cells, you are gaining a function. You were doing something that's dangerous, and you are massaging this virus and pushing it through natural selection or through laboratory selection towards something that's more infectious to humans. All of that's true. I don't know how he can get away with a straight face or anybody who'd believe him by saying, well, but according to the way we wrote the definition. But it got so bad that in the middle of this whole fight, he showed up one day and they'd changed the definition at midnight the night before on the website. We actually downloaded the definition and confronted him with the new definition, and when he said it wasn't gain a function, we said, what you mean, according to the new definition you put on the website at midnight last night, it's changemanship, but it's dishonest.

I think he's a dissembler and a purser of words, which is a nice way of saying he's a liar. But basically what he does is he comes in and he says, well, it's not gain to function because this is the definition of gain of function, so therefore it can't be gain to function. So then we have the acting director of the NIH come in and he says, well, according to the general understanding of gain of function, sure it's gain of function, but according to our specific definition of game function, it's not. We know that the research was so dangerous that one of the reasons ECO health that was working with the Chinese on this got reprimanded is they did not report when it had growth that I believe was a thousandfold greater than it should have been. When that growth wasn't reported, that was evidence of gain of function, and at that point, obviously it would be gain of function. What Anthony Fouche would say is because he's a guy that's going to be you don't last forty years at the top of government without being clever with words. He would say, Well, viruses that aren't already known to be pandemic viruses can't be gain to function because we don't know their pandemic viruses. Which is really kind of insane because they take two viruses, coronaviruses that are more animal viruses, but then when they put them together, they run them through animal cells, they run them through mice that have human lungs, and they do that. They do it over and over again to try to get the virus to mutate towards adapting to grow in human cells. Well, you're creating something that grows in human cells, you are gaining a function. You were doing something that's dangerous, and you are massaging this virus and pushing it through natural selection or through laboratory selection towards something that's more infectious to humans. All of that's true. I don't know how he can get away with a straight face or anybody who'd believe him by saying, well, but according to the way we wrote the definition. But it got so bad that in the middle of this whole fight, he showed up one day and they'd changed the definition at midnight the night before on the website. We actually downloaded the definition and confronted him with the new definition, and when he said it wasn't gain a function, we said, what you mean, according to the new definition you put on the website at midnight last night, it's changemanship, but it's dishonest.

Well, and they did that with vaccines too, you know, they kept changing the definition of what it meant to be vaccinated, you know, speaking of which President Trump has reinstated or unvaccinated unvaccinated military heroes. We still don't know the full extent of vaccine injuries in this country, will we ever know? And also is there a way to remove the liability protection for vaccine manufacturers.

Well, and they did that with vaccines too, you know, they kept changing the definition of what it meant to be vaccinated, you know, speaking of which President Trump has reinstated or unvaccinated unvaccinated military heroes. We still don't know the full extent of vaccine injuries in this country, will we ever know? And also is there a way to remove the liability protection for vaccine manufacturers.

I'm very proud of President Trump for, you know, getting these people back there was eight thousand. I think military folks that separated for lack of a vaccine. Some of them, you know, I became friends with and we met. They came to the office, and they came to testify. One of them was a pilot for an F thirty five, and we estimated that the taxpayers spent thirty one million dollars training this pilot. You know, it's not Everard Joe Smith down the road can fly and F thirty five. We spent all this money to get him well trained. And he was like in year seventeen or something, very very valuable to us as a country, and was getting ready to separate. But fortunately he and a few others held on and weren't separated until we got rid of the mandate. This is the first vaccine mandate we've ever removed, So it was a big deal. Even though we lost some battles, and you know, there's a lot that was lost civil liberties wise, you know, winning a battle against a mandatory vaccine mandate, peeling it, and then electing a president that's actually going to reinstate these people. These are just huge victories. So I'm very excited about it. On liability protection, this actually passed I think back in the eighties and my dad was one of the few votes against it. What they do is come to you and they say, well, we can never get these vaccines, there's not much profit in them, which is not true really, and we'll never get them to make it unless we protect them from liability. The problem with protection of liability is you can see it from a business side and say, oh, this is good. It's good once you have liability protection. What obligation do you have or what incentive do you have not to have significant side effects that would harm people if nobody can sue you, And then people do sue the government. They set up this government injury program and so there's four billion dollars that have been passed out in it, but doesn't change the manufacturer's behavior because the manufacturers not being punished through liability. So I'd say the odds of changing liability, I would vote to put liability back in, but it would get a small number because all the apologists would say, oh, we'll never have any vaccines. Nobody will do it without liability. But it's actually the opposite. Look at the extraordinary money that Fiser and Maderna made. They made so much money that the government said, oh, we you owe us some because we share in the patent. They got one point two trillion dollars out of Piser and Maderna that went back to NIH, which sets up a whole nother quandary of conflict of interest, because if one point two trillion dollars is coming in from two companies, how's the NIH and the FDA going to judge them without a conflict Because interest in so much money flowing back in from big Pharma.

I'm very proud of President Trump for, you know, getting these people back there was eight thousand. I think military folks that separated for lack of a vaccine. Some of them, you know, I became friends with and we met. They came to the office, and they came to testify. One of them was a pilot for an F thirty five, and we estimated that the taxpayers spent thirty one million dollars training this pilot. You know, it's not Everard Joe Smith down the road can fly and F thirty five. We spent all this money to get him well trained. And he was like in year seventeen or something, very very valuable to us as a country, and was getting ready to separate. But fortunately he and a few others held on and weren't separated until we got rid of the mandate. This is the first vaccine mandate we've ever removed, So it was a big deal. Even though we lost some battles, and you know, there's a lot that was lost civil liberties wise, you know, winning a battle against a mandatory vaccine mandate, peeling it, and then electing a president that's actually going to reinstate these people. These are just huge victories. So I'm very excited about it. On liability protection, this actually passed I think back in the eighties and my dad was one of the few votes against it. What they do is come to you and they say, well, we can never get these vaccines, there's not much profit in them, which is not true really, and we'll never get them to make it unless we protect them from liability. The problem with protection of liability is you can see it from a business side and say, oh, this is good. It's good once you have liability protection. What obligation do you have or what incentive do you have not to have significant side effects that would harm people if nobody can sue you, And then people do sue the government. They set up this government injury program and so there's four billion dollars that have been passed out in it, but doesn't change the manufacturer's behavior because the manufacturers not being punished through liability. So I'd say the odds of changing liability, I would vote to put liability back in, but it would get a small number because all the apologists would say, oh, we'll never have any vaccines. Nobody will do it without liability. But it's actually the opposite. Look at the extraordinary money that Fiser and Maderna made. They made so much money that the government said, oh, we you owe us some because we share in the patent. They got one point two trillion dollars out of Piser and Maderna that went back to NIH, which sets up a whole nother quandary of conflict of interest, because if one point two trillion dollars is coming in from two companies, how's the NIH and the FDA going to judge them without a conflict Because interest in so much money flowing back in from big Pharma.

We've got more set at a rampall in just a moment. But first, after more than a year of war, terror and pain in Israel, there's still demand for basic humanitarian aid. The International Fellowship of Christians and Jews is supported and continues to support those in the Holy Land still facing the lingering horrors of war, and those who are desperate need right now. Your gift today will provide a critically needed aid to communities in the North and the South devastated by the ongoing war. Your generous donation will deliver help to those in need, including evacuees and refugees from war torn areas, also first responders and volunteers, wounded soldiers, elderly, hog cost survivors, and families who have lost everything, and so much more. You can give hope during a time of great uncertainty. Give a gift to bless Israel and her people by visiting support IFCJ dot org. That's one word support IFCJ dot org. Or call eight eight eight four a eight IFCJ that's eight eight eight or eight I SDJ eight eight eight four a eight four three two five. I mean, you talked about the loss of liberty that we saw during COVID. How much do you think this election was a response to that of people just kind of like want to, you know, get off my lawn type election.

We've got more set at a rampall in just a moment. But first, after more than a year of war, terror and pain in Israel, there's still demand for basic humanitarian aid. The International Fellowship of Christians and Jews is supported and continues to support those in the Holy Land still facing the lingering horrors of war, and those who are desperate need right now. Your gift today will provide a critically needed aid to communities in the North and the South devastated by the ongoing war. Your generous donation will deliver help to those in need, including evacuees and refugees from war torn areas, also first responders and volunteers, wounded soldiers, elderly, hog cost survivors, and families who have lost everything, and so much more. You can give hope during a time of great uncertainty. Give a gift to bless Israel and her people by visiting support IFCJ dot org. That's one word support IFCJ dot org. Or call eight eight eight four a eight IFCJ that's eight eight eight or eight I SDJ eight eight eight four a eight four three two five. I mean, you talked about the loss of liberty that we saw during COVID. How much do you think this election was a response to that of people just kind of like want to, you know, get off my lawn type election.

I think it's a part of it. It's a part of it, particularly for the you know, the people who believe in medical freedom that were followers through Bobby Kennedy. I think some of those were not traditional Republican voters. Their independence, their moms, their libertarian leading moms, or people leave me alone kind of moms and dads, but a lot of a lot of women, and I think some of those came to the movement for that reason. I think some of the military did, some doctors and nurses who were let go came to the movement over this, But it was a combination of things. I think there are also people that didn't, you know, that were saddened by the death of Lake and Riley and the idea that people were illegal in our country. We could have sent him home and didn't, and then they killed this you know, innocent young woman. It's just a tragedy and it didn't happen once. You know, there are many high profile there was a I guess a young girl killed in Texas as well and other places. But I think it's a combination of things that got Trump in and then the utter incompetence of the Biden administration and inflation and hurt them as well.

I think it's a part of it. It's a part of it, particularly for the you know, the people who believe in medical freedom that were followers through Bobby Kennedy. I think some of those were not traditional Republican voters. Their independence, their moms, their libertarian leading moms, or people leave me alone kind of moms and dads, but a lot of a lot of women, and I think some of those came to the movement for that reason. I think some of the military did, some doctors and nurses who were let go came to the movement over this, But it was a combination of things. I think there are also people that didn't, you know, that were saddened by the death of Lake and Riley and the idea that people were illegal in our country. We could have sent him home and didn't, and then they killed this you know, innocent young woman. It's just a tragedy and it didn't happen once. You know, there are many high profile there was a I guess a young girl killed in Texas as well and other places. But I think it's a combination of things that got Trump in and then the utter incompetence of the Biden administration and inflation and hurt them as well.

Well, you know, speaking of the immigration aspect. So you were the chairman at the Homeland Security Committee, I think that I mean, you already know you've got your work cut out for you with trying to roll back the open borders and the damage that's been done over these past four years. Sort of what's at the top of your list your objectives for the committee as we look forward and trying to deal with that crisis.

Well, you know, speaking of the immigration aspect. So you were the chairman at the Homeland Security Committee, I think that I mean, you already know you've got your work cut out for you with trying to roll back the open borders and the damage that's been done over these past four years. Sort of what's at the top of your list your objectives for the committee as we look forward and trying to deal with that crisis.

Well, we had our first hearing actually before President Trump was sworn in, and we talked about the belief that the current immigration laws, even without a new law, give the president a great deal of latitude. We believe that remained in Mexico is something that the statutes already approved. Trump did it to executive action, Biden undid it, and now Trump has reinstated it. I actually believe that the immigration law is the president enough latitude that if you're coming across the river, you can be put right back on the Mexican side. What we were seeing instead is we were seeing immigration agents, directed by Biden, cutting the concertina wire and helping them into Texas, putting them in some four year odyssey of waiting for a detainment trial or an immigration trial, never getting it, never coming back, and being flown all over the US. I think everybody thought that was absurd, But most of us think, you know, why is somebody coming illegally brought into the country. If you catch them in the act, why don't you just put them right back on the other side. I think, frankly, if we did that all the time, and we've got a lot of people down there on the border, rail put them back into the side, and if Mexico complains, let them complain. We'll see what they want to do about it. But it's not like we'll be really getting into their soil well, taking them up to the water's edge. Putting them on the other side. But then you wouldn't do all the processing and talking about building massive tents and camps down there. I think that's a disaster, I think. But just put them all back on the other side, and I think they're quick coming pretty quickly, and then you know, we'll see where it goes. I think he's already been a dramatic lowering of numbers, and I think most people, I think even some Democrats are cheering at the arrest of you know, they just arrested. I think yesterday the leader of this gang from Venezuela that was, you know, harassing and assaulting people in Alura, Colorado. They found him in New York with weapons. It's like these people are moving around. He's already gone from a Laura to New York City, but they found him. So now I'm with the president on this, and I think we're going to see a dramatic change, and I think the public is actually excited to see a president's actually doing some work.

Well, we had our first hearing actually before President Trump was sworn in, and we talked about the belief that the current immigration laws, even without a new law, give the president a great deal of latitude. We believe that remained in Mexico is something that the statutes already approved. Trump did it to executive action, Biden undid it, and now Trump has reinstated it. I actually believe that the immigration law is the president enough latitude that if you're coming across the river, you can be put right back on the Mexican side. What we were seeing instead is we were seeing immigration agents, directed by Biden, cutting the concertina wire and helping them into Texas, putting them in some four year odyssey of waiting for a detainment trial or an immigration trial, never getting it, never coming back, and being flown all over the US. I think everybody thought that was absurd, But most of us think, you know, why is somebody coming illegally brought into the country. If you catch them in the act, why don't you just put them right back on the other side. I think, frankly, if we did that all the time, and we've got a lot of people down there on the border, rail put them back into the side, and if Mexico complains, let them complain. We'll see what they want to do about it. But it's not like we'll be really getting into their soil well, taking them up to the water's edge. Putting them on the other side. But then you wouldn't do all the processing and talking about building massive tents and camps down there. I think that's a disaster, I think. But just put them all back on the other side, and I think they're quick coming pretty quickly, and then you know, we'll see where it goes. I think he's already been a dramatic lowering of numbers, and I think most people, I think even some Democrats are cheering at the arrest of you know, they just arrested. I think yesterday the leader of this gang from Venezuela that was, you know, harassing and assaulting people in Alura, Colorado. They found him in New York with weapons. It's like these people are moving around. He's already gone from a Laura to New York City, but they found him. So now I'm with the president on this, and I think we're going to see a dramatic change, and I think the public is actually excited to see a president's actually doing some work.

Yeah, I mean, I've seen videos of some of these illegal aliens telling people to you know, don't come there like they're going to send you you know, right, So it's good that the message it's like the complete opposite message of what we had when Joe Biden took off, as when it was basically like you know, come green light. Now it's like, nope, don't do this. You know you're going to get sent right back, you know. So you're a fiscal conservative, obviously, mass deportations it's going to cost money. When we look ahead at whatever reconciliation build the House in the Senate comes up with soon, what should funding look like in that for for mass deportations and sort of how do you how do you balance the fact that you know, we're thirty six trillion dollars in debt with also the priority of getting these bad guys out of our country.

Yeah, I mean, I've seen videos of some of these illegal aliens telling people to you know, don't come there like they're going to send you you know, right, So it's good that the message it's like the complete opposite message of what we had when Joe Biden took off, as when it was basically like you know, come green light. Now it's like, nope, don't do this. You know you're going to get sent right back, you know. So you're a fiscal conservative, obviously, mass deportations it's going to cost money. When we look ahead at whatever reconciliation build the House in the Senate comes up with soon, what should funding look like in that for for mass deportations and sort of how do you how do you balance the fact that you know, we're thirty six trillion dollars in debt with also the priority of getting these bad guys out of our country.

I think the biggest threat to our country is from within, and it's our debt. I think it's greater than any external threat. It's even greater than the immigration problem. It is our debt. So I won't be a blank check even for you know, somebody who wants forty billion dollars for a wall. A wall's part of the answer. But forty billion dollars is not a conservative notion. A lot of the border really, frankly, will never get walls. It's either Indian reservations, it's mountains or private ranchers that aren't selling in the cities and the busy thoroughfares. I think the wall makes some sense, but as far as wanting money but sending two hundred billion dollars to Ukraine, I'll vote to repurpose two hundred billion dollars from Ukraine to the southern border, but I won't just keep voting to add on. So some of the Republicans are wanting to use this process called reconciliation where we vote by simple majority, and they're saying, oh, yeah, we want to do it because we want to bust the military caps. So really half of my caucus is talking every day about I want they want to spend more money in the military, and then some of them want more money on the on the border. But then none of them are really interested in cuts. So I presented forty different cuts, two mandatory programs that we could do. The biggest one on my list was when Obama added all these new young, healthier people to Medicaid in twenty ten, he added them with the government the cetle government pays ninety percent, the states pay ten percent. The split normally fifty. So if you just took all these medicaid people and you didn't kick them off, you just said it's going to be fifty to fifty. So the states are going to have to pony up, and either states ought to raise taxes or the state's office set the limitations to have some of these people go back to the private sector. If you did that, that's five hundred billion over ten years. So there's a lot of changes like that where we make the states more responsible. And the states aren't inherently more conservative, but because most states have some limitations, they don't have a federal reserve. It's good to shift burden back to the states and then maybe the states get fed up enough to do something about it. But if they're willing to put spending cups like that in there, they can get me. I'm for keeping the tax cuts, for making them permanent. I think if they expired, I think we'd have a huge recession as you squeeze all that money out of the economy. But if you want more money for a wall, or more money for agents to get people. You're going to have to cut somewhere else, because my fear is is that we are at a breaking point right now, two trillion dollars annually being apt at it. Sometimes we're adding a trillion in three months, so it is literally out of control and it will destroy our country. We will destroy the currency and you won't have to wear that border because it'll be chaos everywhere when the currency goes. Yeah.

I think the biggest threat to our country is from within, and it's our debt. I think it's greater than any external threat. It's even greater than the immigration problem. It is our debt. So I won't be a blank check even for you know, somebody who wants forty billion dollars for a wall. A wall's part of the answer. But forty billion dollars is not a conservative notion. A lot of the border really, frankly, will never get walls. It's either Indian reservations, it's mountains or private ranchers that aren't selling in the cities and the busy thoroughfares. I think the wall makes some sense, but as far as wanting money but sending two hundred billion dollars to Ukraine, I'll vote to repurpose two hundred billion dollars from Ukraine to the southern border, but I won't just keep voting to add on. So some of the Republicans are wanting to use this process called reconciliation where we vote by simple majority, and they're saying, oh, yeah, we want to do it because we want to bust the military caps. So really half of my caucus is talking every day about I want they want to spend more money in the military, and then some of them want more money on the on the border. But then none of them are really interested in cuts. So I presented forty different cuts, two mandatory programs that we could do. The biggest one on my list was when Obama added all these new young, healthier people to Medicaid in twenty ten, he added them with the government the cetle government pays ninety percent, the states pay ten percent. The split normally fifty. So if you just took all these medicaid people and you didn't kick them off, you just said it's going to be fifty to fifty. So the states are going to have to pony up, and either states ought to raise taxes or the state's office set the limitations to have some of these people go back to the private sector. If you did that, that's five hundred billion over ten years. So there's a lot of changes like that where we make the states more responsible. And the states aren't inherently more conservative, but because most states have some limitations, they don't have a federal reserve. It's good to shift burden back to the states and then maybe the states get fed up enough to do something about it. But if they're willing to put spending cups like that in there, they can get me. I'm for keeping the tax cuts, for making them permanent. I think if they expired, I think we'd have a huge recession as you squeeze all that money out of the economy. But if you want more money for a wall, or more money for agents to get people. You're going to have to cut somewhere else, because my fear is is that we are at a breaking point right now, two trillion dollars annually being apt at it. Sometimes we're adding a trillion in three months, so it is literally out of control and it will destroy our country. We will destroy the currency and you won't have to wear that border because it'll be chaos everywhere when the currency goes. Yeah.

I mentioned your your festivus uh the other day on Fox. But because you know, we're talking about cutting spending, so I'm sure coming up with that list sometimes are like I can't even believe that, you know, we're wasting money on this nonsense.

I mentioned your your festivus uh the other day on Fox. But because you know, we're talking about cutting spending, so I'm sure coming up with that list sometimes are like I can't even believe that, you know, we're wasting money on this nonsense.

I wanted to get you pretty important, you know, so it was really important, like girl girl centric climate change in Brazil. I mean, don't you want the little girls in Brazil to hear about climate change?

I wanted to get you pretty important, you know, so it was really important, like girl girl centric climate change in Brazil. I mean, don't you want the little girls in Brazil to hear about climate change?

Well, I think there was a drag queen. Yeah, there was like drag qu and ice skating or ice skating.

Well, I think there was a drag queen. Yeah, there was like drag qu and ice skating or ice skating.

Yeah, the beard of the bearded ladies. You know, it's it's just insane the stuff we spend money on.

Yeah, the beard of the bearded ladies. You know, it's it's just insane the stuff we spend money on.

It's I you know, I love that list because it's important because it forces a conversation that needs to be had and kind of forces us to realize the ridiculousness of how we spend money. I want to get you real quick before we go. Your dad has been right about a lot of things, as I'm sure you know, but he had mentioned back in the nineteen eighties that it almost looks like the FBI was designed to spy on Americans who disagree with policy. You know, we've certainly seen that over the years, directed at Donald Trump. And you know, I guess, how do we change the FBI? You know what is possible over these next four years and trying to get some reforms done.

It's I you know, I love that list because it's important because it forces a conversation that needs to be had and kind of forces us to realize the ridiculousness of how we spend money. I want to get you real quick before we go. Your dad has been right about a lot of things, as I'm sure you know, but he had mentioned back in the nineteen eighties that it almost looks like the FBI was designed to spy on Americans who disagree with policy. You know, we've certainly seen that over the years, directed at Donald Trump. And you know, I guess, how do we change the FBI? You know what is possible over these next four years and trying to get some reforms done.

The first thing you got to do is get good people. Telsea Gabbart I think would be great, Cash Ptel will be great, and you got to get them over the finish line. So, if any of your listeners want to reform the deep state and want to eliminate politicization, want to avoid and get rid of redirecting our sources that should be towards spies oversea against American citizens, we got to get them in. Telsea would be a change agent. Kelsey Gabbert would be good, and we got to get her over. It's very close. There'll be no Democrats, and it's going to be whether we can corral fifty Republicans. Same way frankly with Bobby Kennedy, same way with Cash Mattel. They're all very very close. But if we don't, they have so misused the FBI that the FBI became a political arm of the Democrat Party, Department of Justice, same thing. And so I've been glad that. You know, I saw the other day that the President pardoned two women who had been and I know this is going to sound terrible because this is really violent. One woman was eighty nine and in her wheelchair. She was accused of obstructing an abortion clinic. They wanted to put her in jail for eleven years. The seventy five year old woman who has long difficulty and can't walk that far, she was actually in I think she was actually put in jail. The first one didn't make it to jail, but the second one was in jail for two years for obstructing abortion clinic. When the Department of Justice and FBI doing that kind of craft, we've gone too far. They've become politicized.

The first thing you got to do is get good people. Telsea Gabbart I think would be great, Cash Ptel will be great, and you got to get them over the finish line. So, if any of your listeners want to reform the deep state and want to eliminate politicization, want to avoid and get rid of redirecting our sources that should be towards spies oversea against American citizens, we got to get them in. Telsea would be a change agent. Kelsey Gabbert would be good, and we got to get her over. It's very close. There'll be no Democrats, and it's going to be whether we can corral fifty Republicans. Same way frankly with Bobby Kennedy, same way with Cash Mattel. They're all very very close. But if we don't, they have so misused the FBI that the FBI became a political arm of the Democrat Party, Department of Justice, same thing. And so I've been glad that. You know, I saw the other day that the President pardoned two women who had been and I know this is going to sound terrible because this is really violent. One woman was eighty nine and in her wheelchair. She was accused of obstructing an abortion clinic. They wanted to put her in jail for eleven years. The seventy five year old woman who has long difficulty and can't walk that far, she was actually in I think she was actually put in jail. The first one didn't make it to jail, but the second one was in jail for two years for obstructing abortion clinic. When the Department of Justice and FBI doing that kind of craft, we've gone too far. They've become politicized.

Absolutely well, thank god you know change is here, and you know I look forward to saying what happens over the next four years. Senator Rampaul, you've been generous with your time. I always appreciate you joining the show. Thanks so much for coming on. Thank you so with Senator Ram Paul of Kentucky. Appreciate him for taking the time to come on the show. Appreciate you guys at home for listening every Monday and Thursday, but you can listen throughout the week. I want to take my producer, John Cassio, for putting the show together. Until next time.

Absolutely well, thank god you know change is here, and you know I look forward to saying what happens over the next four years. Senator Rampaul, you've been generous with your time. I always appreciate you joining the show. Thanks so much for coming on. Thank you so with Senator Ram Paul of Kentucky. Appreciate him for taking the time to come on the show. Appreciate you guys at home for listening every Monday and Thursday, but you can listen throughout the week. I want to take my producer, John Cassio, for putting the show together. Until next time.