Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
His Riyan Thomas. Always happy to welcome to the fifty
five KRC Morning Show from the Commonwealth of Kentucky and
thank god for Kentucky voters. Senator Ran Paul, welcome back
to the program, my friend. It's always a pleasure speaking
with you.
Speaker 2 (00:10):
Thanks Brian, thanks for having me.
Speaker 1 (00:12):
I know, people generally have lost a lot of confidence
in government for a whole variety of reasons. Our lettered
agencies have let us down from time to time, and
here we are pivoting over to the US Secret Service,
who obviously let former President Donald Trump down. He was
just a fraction of an inch away from getting assassinated,
and then the failures are revealed. This so much so,
(00:33):
Senator Paul, and I know there's a million conspiracy theories
rolling around the internet about this, and I'm the kind
of guy who wants to sit back and wait till
the dust settles and they get my evidence. But more
and more people are concluding that maybe this negligence, and
I would call it gross negligence, was by design. I
haven't reached that point yet, but it's so bad optically
speaking that people are drawing those conclusions. What is your
(00:57):
reaction to the failures, and what are we going to
be doing about it on a going forward basis?
Speaker 2 (01:01):
Senator Ran Paul, without question, these failures are indefensible. They're grotesque.
They're such that the average ordinary citizen who knows nothing
about security as appalled to find out what happened. The
police had identified this suspect ninety minutes before the shooting.
(01:22):
He was seen at four point thirty. The shooting happened
at six p' eleven. At four point thirty, they're saying,
looks like he's eyeing your position up there, looks like
he's learning about the structure. Well, that sounds suspicious enough
to go talk to him. Had they at any point
in the ninety minutes gone and talked to him, he
had a backpack with him. Backpack probably weighed I don't know,
(01:44):
ten to fifteen pounds because it had an ar fifteen
innut folded up. At any point in time, had they
confronted him, this would have been prevented. But even at
the very end, let's say the ninety minutes goes on,
you getting to the point where he's now in the roof.
He gets on the roof at six oh six, shooting
is at six ' eleven. He hasked to traverse about
fifty yards on the roof. There's four buildings that are
(02:06):
joined by roof, but you have to go up and
down a little bit. You go down five feet here,
up five feet there. And he's basically, I got a
run across, you know, about fifty yards worth of roof.
He does that, and so at six he gets on
the roof. At six oh six, within about a minute
or so, a brown six oh six. The crowd is shouting,
man on the roof, Man on the roof. At six
(02:29):
oh eight, police saying, man on a roof, man on
a roof. They still don't see a gun because he's
triedly gotten his backpack and he hadn't assembled the gun yet.
But at six oh eight, so man on a roof
at six oh eight. Now the police know at six
oh eight it's three more minutes to the shooting. Why
in the world would there not be an all points
bulletin broadcast potential shooter on the roof, take the president
(02:53):
off the stage and hit three minutes. That's that's a
long time. That's an enormous amount of time to take
him off the stage. Now they still probably can't shoot
this person. They haven't seen a weapon yet, but by golly,
somebody on the roof is potentially an assassin, and uh,
you know, it's just inexcusable at every turn. The first
(03:14):
Secret Service director was a complete imbecile, a complete uh
you know, uh, completely unrepresentative of what good people would
do in the situation. She wouldn't answer any questions, and
she was she was fired finally, or she resigned. The
new director came in and testified before my committee, and
there's certain things that are encouraged about him. He seems
(03:36):
more you know, military, he's a career, uh you know,
officer of police, officer, Secret Service officer, and he says
it will be accountability. He has a disciplinary hearing, and
on the face of that, Doll was very good, but
also during the hearing he kind of pointed fingers at
the local police and kind of try to blame it
on them. And my point to him was who who's
(03:58):
in charge? Who's in charge of the operation. He says,
without questioning, the Secret Service, So there was at least
one or two agents in charge of this. They can't
do this again. They showed that they do not have
the management or discernment to be in charge of this
because they failed so significantly. And the thing is is
(04:20):
even if you even if they really do claim, which
the local police deny this, but if they claim we
assigned that roof to the local police. When you're the
Secret Service, aation in charge and you walk on the
grounds and you say, oh, my goodness, he's going to
stand in here and look at that roof, you know
you would you would then say, no, we do have
to have somebody the roof. It is your it is
(04:40):
your responsibility. Yesterday, I don't know if you saw this,
but a video came out from one of the guys
that was shot in the first row behind Donald Trump.
I saw he's videotaping Donald Trump and you see the
shooter in the background. That even more remarkable than the
shooter is how close that building is. That building, That
building looms so large. Now something that's a trick of perspective,
(05:02):
I think with the photography, but that building's pretty damn close,
and to have left it unguarded is inexcusable. That person
needs to be fired and never in charge. And I asked,
I asked the director this directly. I said, you know,
people want to know that that person's not going to
be in charge of making decisions at the Democrat National
Convention in two weeks. He says, Oh, that won't be.
(05:23):
But then later on he says, oh, but they're still working,
and you know, we don't want to reveal their names
for their safety. And it's like, well, maybe they shouldn't
be working. Maybe they should be on a desk job.
I understand the need for a procedure or a disciplinary hearing,
but they shouldn't be out there making decisions on the
heels of this.
Speaker 1 (05:38):
Oh, without question. And I thought it was rather ear
it was James Copenhaber that got shot. He's the one
that took that video. But when you watch it, I
mean you can see Crook's head just move right along
that roof line. I mean it's like a giant red
flag being waved that there's a guy out there. You've
got Secret Service snipers perched behind and elevated behind Trump.
I mean that had to be as a parent as
(06:00):
is the hand in front of their faced from that perspective,
yet no one saw him.
Speaker 2 (06:05):
Yeah, and just one thing after another, I tend not
to want to believe that, Oh, you know, in order
for a whole bunch of people to be in league
and this could be a purposeful thing by government. You'd
have to imagine, you know, several people all deciding that.
While I do think there's Trump Patrood out there, there
definitely was Trump patriod at the FBI. I just you know,
(06:26):
can't believe. You know, we'll look where the evidence takes it,
but I can't believe that there would be enough people
that are going to get together to actually try to
allow a former president to be killed. Now, I do
think that we need to examine their reasons why they
denied extra security for him. So this question came up
right after the shooting, and the Secret Service was asked,
(06:47):
did Trump campaign or Trump's Secret Service detail asked for
extra security? And the answer explicitly from the Secret Service
was no. And we put that up there yesterday and
we said we now know this to be untrue, and
the acting director said, no, that is true. That saying
absolutely is true for Butler. And I looked at that,
(07:08):
and I looked at him incredulously, and I thought, he's
basically telling us that a statement that didn't mention Butler
County is true for Butler County, when in reality, the
question that was asked was was Secret Service protection denied
at any time, not just for the one event. And
so really it's a very deceptive statement if you're putting
(07:29):
out a statement saying no secret additional Secret Service agents
were not denied, and then he says, oh, yeah, for Butler,
they weren't, but that wasn't in what the statement said.
So it's really really deceptive parsing of words, which makes
me think, oh, my goodness, this is an agency that
isn't being completely.
Speaker 1 (07:47):
Honest with us well and not forthright with the information.
And when Cheetah was testifying, and you're right, she was
an embarrassment. I felt embarrassed for he was so terrible.
But she would not even answer questions about the information
she had at the time. She could have, you know, like,
what was the first time Secret Service got noticed of
this guy? I can't answer that because the investigation's not over.
I mean, well, what do you know now? Change the
(08:08):
testimony later if your report determines that, no, the first
interaction was not at that time what I said in
front of Congress, it was over here. Fine, you got
yourself some cover, but what do you know now? By
the time she was in front of the members of Congress.
She had literally talked to every member of Secret Service
who was there, so it's not as if she didn't
have the information.
Speaker 2 (08:28):
Yeah, and this is what makes people distrust government. This
is what feeds conspiracy theories, is when government isn't honest
and won't put things forward. It's like, it took them
two weeks to tell us that there were eight bullets fired,
and you know, that should have been that was known
that day when they went to collect the shooter's body,
there were eight casings there, and I think they knew
within a day or two. They're still doing some investigation
(08:50):
on trajectory and thing, but they knew eight shots were fired.
And you know, I think they have audio of it,
so they can hear the eight shots being fired, which
helps to dispel any kind of notion of a second shooter.
And that should be put out there and they could
always say, we're still investigating, but right now, our evidence
points towards there being a single shooter and the shots fired.
(09:11):
The audio agrees with the bullet casings, and we see
the evidence of a second shooter, and then that puts
people at ease. You know that there weren't two shooters
at the assassination attempt.
Speaker 1 (09:24):
Exactly right. You got to give us what you know.
None of it's harmful. The investigation can continue to at
least satisfy us with some information now, and that's not
what we get, you know. I mean, let's face it,
Senator ran Paul, if it was not for local law enforcement,
we'd have very little information at all on this thing.
Speaker 2 (09:39):
Yeah, and they've been very forthcoming. We've met with them,
we've interviewed with them. They haven't said the lawyers. They're saying,
here's the truth, and we want everybody to know the
truth about this, and that's that's kind of what we need.
We just need to not have, you know, the dissembling
and evasion and just the typical government people trying not
(10:01):
to basically to cover their ass more than to actually
tell the truth.
Speaker 1 (10:06):
Indeed, we do well, Senator Rampai, I certainly appreciate you
joining the Morning Show this morning. Oh very briefly before
we part company. You are one of the few no
votes on that Internet Children Protection bill the other day,
and I from my perspective, I certainly understand why you're
a no vote, But ninety three to three or something
had passed. I just want to know, if you could articulately,
briefly for my listeners your explanation as to why it
(10:29):
was not worthy of your vote.
Speaker 2 (10:32):
This bill sets up something called the Children's Online Safety Committee.
The Children's Online Safety Committee will then be tasked with
trying to regulate any kind of content that causes anxiety
in teenagers. So let's say there's a fifteen year old
girl and she's pregnant, and she's trying to decide whether
(10:53):
to keep the baby or have an abortion. And so
let's say you're on the pro life side where I am,
and they're pregnancy cent that would be have information out there.
But let's say her mother wants her to have an abortion,
and her mother says, this pregnancy center shouldn't be allowed
to broadcast this because it's causing my child anxiety. To
we ban the pregnancy center on the other side of it,
(11:15):
what if she, you know, is you know the reproductive
health abortion people, you know, should that be banned and
she shouldn't be allowed to hear about that because she's
really pro life and that is upsetting her and calls
her anxiety. I mean, it's kind of crazy that we'd
let government regulate things to cost teenagers anxiety. The most
famous case is Greta Thunberg, that foolish girl from Europe
(11:36):
who was crazy about climate alarmism. I think the world's
going to end. She didn't eat for a year because
she's anxious about the climate. Harvard did a study in
sixty five percent of young people between the ages of
fifteen and thirty say that they're anxious enough about the
climate that it affects their daily routine. Does that mean
that when I tell them it's all a bunch of
bunk and it's climate alarmism and they're exaggerators, that maybe
(12:00):
I should be banned and the teenagers shouldn't be allowed
to see my website if I say that because it
causes anxiety. Either this Pandora's box of censorship. It's well
intended by you know, moms who have lost kids to
suicide and things like this, and it's so tragic, and
everybody wants an answer for suicide. And you know, I
hanging members a kid having friends who committed suicide. No,
(12:20):
we all wanted explanations, but you know, sometimes there isn't.
And you know, here's another example. I love to watch
golf golf has nothing but gambling heads on now, and
you can argue pros and cons of it, but you
can watch it on TV. This bill would actually ban
streaming of PGA golf and fan duel commercials on certain
(12:43):
websites for fear that kids might see gambling advertisements. Same
with beer. They would the screen beer commercials. So the
kid can watch the Super Bowl on TV, they can
watch PGA golf on TV, but they can't watch it
on Facebook. So it's just this bizarre thing. It's to
be a terrible bill. I think the courts may eventually
strike it down as unconstitutional.
Speaker 1 (13:05):
Yeah, and these decisions on what is harmful or not
made by a panel within the federal government is my understanding.
Speaker 2 (13:12):
Right, and it used to be that conservatives understood and
still a lot of us do that. It's the family unit.
It's the responsibility to the parents, and tragedies happen. Look,
they have to put to good parents. Yes, you know,
everybody tries to keep their kids from bad stuff online
and keep them but ultimately the only way to make
the judgment on it. You know, some parents are really
hardcore them to give their kids smartphones till a certain
(13:34):
age and that's one way of doing it. But I'm
not for a rule or a law of decision. Kid
can't have a smartphone, you know. I mean that's a
decision each parent, sort of like violent video games. Some
kids with mental problems. Violent video games might not be good.
But I'm not for telling every American family that their
kids can't play these games. Someone should talk about the
games and whether they're good or bad, and maybe parents
(13:54):
can make better decisions. But some things just aren't the
progative of government.
Speaker 1 (14:00):
Gosh, I love when you make those points. I could
not agree with you more. Senator Ran Paul, thank you
for the time you spent with my listeners of me today.
Truly appreciate your willingness to come on the fifty five
Careceny morning Sure and keep fighting that good fight on
behalf of all of us.
His Riyan Thomas. Always happy to welcome to the fifty
five KRC Morning Show from the Commonwealth of Kentucky and
thank god for Kentucky voters. Senator Ran Paul, welcome back
to the program, my friend. It's always a pleasure speaking
with you.
Speaker 2 (00:10):
Thanks Brian, thanks for having me.
Speaker 1 (00:12):
I know, people generally have lost a lot of confidence
in government for a whole variety of reasons. Our lettered
agencies have let us down from time to time, and
here we are pivoting over to the US Secret Service,
who obviously let former President Donald Trump down. He was
just a fraction of an inch away from getting assassinated,
and then the failures are revealed. This so much so,
(00:33):
Senator Paul, and I know there's a million conspiracy theories
rolling around the internet about this, and I'm the kind
of guy who wants to sit back and wait till
the dust settles and they get my evidence. But more
and more people are concluding that maybe this negligence, and
I would call it gross negligence, was by design. I
haven't reached that point yet, but it's so bad optically
speaking that people are drawing those conclusions. What is your
(00:57):
reaction to the failures, and what are we going to
be doing about it on a going forward basis?
Speaker 2 (01:01):
Senator Ran Paul, without question, these failures are indefensible. They're grotesque.
They're such that the average ordinary citizen who knows nothing
about security as appalled to find out what happened. The
police had identified this suspect ninety minutes before the shooting.
(01:22):
He was seen at four point thirty. The shooting happened
at six p' eleven. At four point thirty, they're saying,
looks like he's eyeing your position up there, looks like
he's learning about the structure. Well, that sounds suspicious enough
to go talk to him. Had they at any point
in the ninety minutes gone and talked to him, he
had a backpack with him. Backpack probably weighed I don't know,
(01:44):
ten to fifteen pounds because it had an ar fifteen
innut folded up. At any point in time, had they
confronted him, this would have been prevented. But even at
the very end, let's say the ninety minutes goes on,
you getting to the point where he's now in the roof.
He gets on the roof at six oh six, shooting
is at six ' eleven. He hasked to traverse about
fifty yards on the roof. There's four buildings that are
(02:06):
joined by roof, but you have to go up and
down a little bit. You go down five feet here,
up five feet there. And he's basically, I got a
run across, you know, about fifty yards worth of roof.
He does that, and so at six he gets on
the roof. At six oh six, within about a minute
or so, a brown six oh six. The crowd is shouting,
man on the roof, Man on the roof. At six
(02:29):
oh eight, police saying, man on a roof, man on
a roof. They still don't see a gun because he's
triedly gotten his backpack and he hadn't assembled the gun yet.
But at six oh eight, so man on a roof
at six oh eight. Now the police know at six
oh eight it's three more minutes to the shooting. Why
in the world would there not be an all points
bulletin broadcast potential shooter on the roof, take the president
(02:53):
off the stage and hit three minutes. That's that's a
long time. That's an enormous amount of time to take
him off the stage. Now they still probably can't shoot
this person. They haven't seen a weapon yet, but by golly,
somebody on the roof is potentially an assassin, and uh,
you know, it's just inexcusable at every turn. The first
(03:14):
Secret Service director was a complete imbecile, a complete uh
you know, uh, completely unrepresentative of what good people would
do in the situation. She wouldn't answer any questions, and
she was she was fired finally, or she resigned. The
new director came in and testified before my committee, and
there's certain things that are encouraged about him. He seems
(03:36):
more you know, military, he's a career, uh you know,
officer of police, officer, Secret Service officer, and he says
it will be accountability. He has a disciplinary hearing, and
on the face of that, Doll was very good, but
also during the hearing he kind of pointed fingers at
the local police and kind of try to blame it
on them. And my point to him was who who's
(03:58):
in charge? Who's in charge of the operation. He says,
without questioning, the Secret Service, So there was at least
one or two agents in charge of this. They can't
do this again. They showed that they do not have
the management or discernment to be in charge of this
because they failed so significantly. And the thing is is
(04:20):
even if you even if they really do claim, which
the local police deny this, but if they claim we
assigned that roof to the local police. When you're the
Secret Service, aation in charge and you walk on the
grounds and you say, oh, my goodness, he's going to
stand in here and look at that roof, you know
you would you would then say, no, we do have
to have somebody the roof. It is your it is
(04:40):
your responsibility. Yesterday, I don't know if you saw this,
but a video came out from one of the guys
that was shot in the first row behind Donald Trump.
I saw he's videotaping Donald Trump and you see the
shooter in the background. That even more remarkable than the
shooter is how close that building is. That building, That
building looms so large. Now something that's a trick of perspective,
(05:02):
I think with the photography, but that building's pretty damn close,
and to have left it unguarded is inexcusable. That person
needs to be fired and never in charge. And I asked,
I asked the director this directly. I said, you know,
people want to know that that person's not going to
be in charge of making decisions at the Democrat National
Convention in two weeks. He says, Oh, that won't be.
(05:23):
But then later on he says, oh, but they're still working,
and you know, we don't want to reveal their names
for their safety. And it's like, well, maybe they shouldn't
be working. Maybe they should be on a desk job.
I understand the need for a procedure or a disciplinary hearing,
but they shouldn't be out there making decisions on the
heels of this.
Speaker 1 (05:38):
Oh, without question. And I thought it was rather ear
it was James Copenhaber that got shot. He's the one
that took that video. But when you watch it, I
mean you can see Crook's head just move right along
that roof line. I mean it's like a giant red
flag being waved that there's a guy out there. You've
got Secret Service snipers perched behind and elevated behind Trump.
I mean that had to be as a parent as
(06:00):
is the hand in front of their faced from that perspective,
yet no one saw him.
Speaker 2 (06:05):
Yeah, and just one thing after another, I tend not
to want to believe that, Oh, you know, in order
for a whole bunch of people to be in league
and this could be a purposeful thing by government. You'd
have to imagine, you know, several people all deciding that.
While I do think there's Trump Patrood out there, there
definitely was Trump patriod at the FBI. I just you know,
(06:26):
can't believe. You know, we'll look where the evidence takes it,
but I can't believe that there would be enough people
that are going to get together to actually try to
allow a former president to be killed. Now, I do
think that we need to examine their reasons why they
denied extra security for him. So this question came up
right after the shooting, and the Secret Service was asked,
(06:47):
did Trump campaign or Trump's Secret Service detail asked for
extra security? And the answer explicitly from the Secret Service
was no. And we put that up there yesterday and
we said we now know this to be untrue, and
the acting director said, no, that is true. That saying
absolutely is true for Butler. And I looked at that,
(07:08):
and I looked at him incredulously, and I thought, he's
basically telling us that a statement that didn't mention Butler
County is true for Butler County, when in reality, the
question that was asked was was Secret Service protection denied
at any time, not just for the one event. And
so really it's a very deceptive statement if you're putting
(07:29):
out a statement saying no secret additional Secret Service agents
were not denied, and then he says, oh, yeah, for Butler,
they weren't, but that wasn't in what the statement said.
So it's really really deceptive parsing of words, which makes
me think, oh, my goodness, this is an agency that
isn't being completely.
Speaker 1 (07:47):
Honest with us well and not forthright with the information.
And when Cheetah was testifying, and you're right, she was
an embarrassment. I felt embarrassed for he was so terrible.
But she would not even answer questions about the information
she had at the time. She could have, you know, like,
what was the first time Secret Service got noticed of
this guy? I can't answer that because the investigation's not over.
I mean, well, what do you know now? Change the
(08:08):
testimony later if your report determines that, no, the first
interaction was not at that time what I said in
front of Congress, it was over here. Fine, you got
yourself some cover, but what do you know now? By
the time she was in front of the members of Congress.
She had literally talked to every member of Secret Service
who was there, so it's not as if she didn't
have the information.
Speaker 2 (08:28):
Yeah, and this is what makes people distrust government. This
is what feeds conspiracy theories, is when government isn't honest
and won't put things forward. It's like, it took them
two weeks to tell us that there were eight bullets fired,
and you know, that should have been that was known
that day when they went to collect the shooter's body,
there were eight casings there, and I think they knew
within a day or two. They're still doing some investigation
(08:50):
on trajectory and thing, but they knew eight shots were fired.
And you know, I think they have audio of it,
so they can hear the eight shots being fired, which
helps to dispel any kind of notion of a second shooter.
And that should be put out there and they could
always say, we're still investigating, but right now, our evidence
points towards there being a single shooter and the shots fired.
(09:11):
The audio agrees with the bullet casings, and we see
the evidence of a second shooter, and then that puts
people at ease. You know that there weren't two shooters
at the assassination attempt.
Speaker 1 (09:24):
Exactly right. You got to give us what you know.
None of it's harmful. The investigation can continue to at
least satisfy us with some information now, and that's not
what we get, you know. I mean, let's face it,
Senator ran Paul, if it was not for local law enforcement,
we'd have very little information at all on this thing.
Speaker 2 (09:39):
Yeah, and they've been very forthcoming. We've met with them,
we've interviewed with them. They haven't said the lawyers. They're saying,
here's the truth, and we want everybody to know the
truth about this, and that's that's kind of what we need.
We just need to not have, you know, the dissembling
and evasion and just the typical government people trying not
(10:01):
to basically to cover their ass more than to actually
tell the truth.
Speaker 1 (10:06):
Indeed, we do well, Senator Rampai, I certainly appreciate you
joining the Morning Show this morning. Oh very briefly before
we part company. You are one of the few no
votes on that Internet Children Protection bill the other day,
and I from my perspective, I certainly understand why you're
a no vote, But ninety three to three or something
had passed. I just want to know, if you could articulately,
briefly for my listeners your explanation as to why it
(10:29):
was not worthy of your vote.
Speaker 2 (10:32):
This bill sets up something called the Children's Online Safety Committee.
The Children's Online Safety Committee will then be tasked with
trying to regulate any kind of content that causes anxiety
in teenagers. So let's say there's a fifteen year old
girl and she's pregnant, and she's trying to decide whether
(10:53):
to keep the baby or have an abortion. And so
let's say you're on the pro life side where I am,
and they're pregnancy cent that would be have information out there.
But let's say her mother wants her to have an abortion,
and her mother says, this pregnancy center shouldn't be allowed
to broadcast this because it's causing my child anxiety. To
we ban the pregnancy center on the other side of it,
(11:15):
what if she, you know, is you know the reproductive
health abortion people, you know, should that be banned and
she shouldn't be allowed to hear about that because she's
really pro life and that is upsetting her and calls
her anxiety. I mean, it's kind of crazy that we'd
let government regulate things to cost teenagers anxiety. The most
famous case is Greta Thunberg, that foolish girl from Europe
(11:36):
who was crazy about climate alarmism. I think the world's
going to end. She didn't eat for a year because
she's anxious about the climate. Harvard did a study in
sixty five percent of young people between the ages of
fifteen and thirty say that they're anxious enough about the
climate that it affects their daily routine. Does that mean
that when I tell them it's all a bunch of
bunk and it's climate alarmism and they're exaggerators, that maybe
(12:00):
I should be banned and the teenagers shouldn't be allowed
to see my website if I say that because it
causes anxiety. Either this Pandora's box of censorship. It's well
intended by you know, moms who have lost kids to
suicide and things like this, and it's so tragic, and
everybody wants an answer for suicide. And you know, I
hanging members a kid having friends who committed suicide. No,
(12:20):
we all wanted explanations, but you know, sometimes there isn't.
And you know, here's another example. I love to watch
golf golf has nothing but gambling heads on now, and
you can argue pros and cons of it, but you
can watch it on TV. This bill would actually ban
streaming of PGA golf and fan duel commercials on certain
(12:43):
websites for fear that kids might see gambling advertisements. Same
with beer. They would the screen beer commercials. So the
kid can watch the Super Bowl on TV, they can
watch PGA golf on TV, but they can't watch it
on Facebook. So it's just this bizarre thing. It's to
be a terrible bill. I think the courts may eventually
strike it down as unconstitutional.
Speaker 1 (13:05):
Yeah, and these decisions on what is harmful or not
made by a panel within the federal government is my understanding.
Speaker 2 (13:12):
Right, and it used to be that conservatives understood and
still a lot of us do that. It's the family unit.
It's the responsibility to the parents, and tragedies happen. Look,
they have to put to good parents. Yes, you know,
everybody tries to keep their kids from bad stuff online
and keep them but ultimately the only way to make
the judgment on it. You know, some parents are really
hardcore them to give their kids smartphones till a certain
(13:34):
age and that's one way of doing it. But I'm
not for a rule or a law of decision. Kid
can't have a smartphone, you know. I mean that's a
decision each parent, sort of like violent video games. Some
kids with mental problems. Violent video games might not be good.
But I'm not for telling every American family that their
kids can't play these games. Someone should talk about the
games and whether they're good or bad, and maybe parents
(13:54):
can make better decisions. But some things just aren't the
progative of government.
Speaker 1 (14:00):
Gosh, I love when you make those points. I could
not agree with you more. Senator Ran Paul, thank you
for the time you spent with my listeners of me today.
Truly appreciate your willingness to come on the fifty five
Careceny morning Sure and keep fighting that good fight on
behalf of all of us.
Brian Thomas News
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Special Summer Offer: Exclusively on Apple Podcasts, try our Dateline Premium subscription completely free for one month! With Dateline Premium, you get every episode ad-free plus exclusive bonus content.
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!