Sept. 25, 2022 - Human Events Daily - Jack Posobiec
22:28
Human Events Sunday Special: Senator Rand Paul
SUNDAY SPECIAL: Jack Posobiec is joined by Kentucky Senator Rand Paul to discuss the senator’s recent debate with Doctor Fauci. Rand Paul and Jack Posobiec talk about the need for a special council of scientists and experts with medical credentials to examine the decisions of government health officials. Rand Paul breaks down why gain of function research is no longer necessary due to the new MRNA technology. After Rand Paul drops stunning numbers regarding doctors and royalties, Poso gets hi...
Ladies and gentlemen, welcome aboard this Human Events Sunday special.
Now, we've been talking about a lot of issues on the show lately, and sometimes that one thing that I really like to do on Sundays is sit back and find a guest who can come on and unpack a lot of the things with us that we've been talking about lately.
Whether it be these issues with, say, the The war in Ukraine, whether it be issues with the overreach of the administrative state, and the administrative state both from a health perspective, a power perspective, and from an idea of a prosecutorial perspective, because we've seen in many cases, obviously most famously,
With President Trump himself being the victim of politicized prosecution from the Department of Justice while he's facing an indictment.
We've also seen for the past two and a half years an out-of-control government.
The NIH effectively taking over our country for years.
Ruling by edict, ruling by dictate through this idea of an administrative state that would be able to control us, countermand your own representatives, your own people, and then have the ability to actually sit there and tell you how you're gonna live, whether or not your elected representatives, your governors, your school boards, want to do anything about it.
And then, on the flip side, if you asked the NIH, and of course, the great elf himself, right, Dr. Fauci, Were you involved in anything, in any type of research, that may have been risky?
Were you involved particularly with, I don't know, gain-of-function research in a place like Wuhan, China, on the Wuhan Institute of Virology, run by the Chinese Communist Party?
They won't give you an answer.
Or what they'll do, is that they'll even attack you, rather than tell you the truth.
Well, I'll tell you something.
There have been a lot of people fighting this fight from day one to ask the questions about these vaccines, to ask the questions about the origins of COVID-19, to hold the line on spending when it comes to sending money overseas to a war in Eurasia that doesn't affect Americans.
And one person who's directly said that he wants to stop what's going on with the Department of Justice.
And that's Senator Rand Paul.
So we're very excited that we're able to bring Senator Rand Paul on the program for all of you.
He is currently involved in all of these things and we're going to ask him about it specifically.
And for those who may not know, Senator Rand Paul, of course, his father is the great Ron Paul.
Someone who brought a lot of these libertarian type ideas to the forefront in 2008 and 2012.
He's also someone who really changed the discussion when it comes to spending, When it comes to the Federal Reserve, certainly.
And then also this idea of whether or not the government and these federal agencies have too much power over our lives directly.
And obviously they do, of course.
And so his legacy is being carried on now by his son in the United States Senate.
His son also, by the way, a physician, just like Ron Paul was.
I don't know if people realize this.
Ron Paul's actually delivered babies.
So whenever he talked about abortion, he knew exactly what he was talking about for a life.
And then Rand Paul as well, a physician, an ophthalmologist, believe it or not, someone who established clinics and free services right there in Bowling Green, Kentucky, to help people out with glaucoma, give them eye checks, do everything they could.
So without further ado, I want to bring on one of the most impressive and remarkable members of the United States Senate, Senator Rand Paul.
So when we look at this, we wonder why you seem to really embrace basic immunology back in 2004 and how you or why you seem to reject it now.
Well, I don't reject basic immunology, Senator.
And I have never denied that there is importance of the protection following infection.
Actually, words don't lie.
If you look at the words behind me, we can go over them a little bit at a time.
She doesn't need it because the most potent vaccination is getting infected yourself.
It is true.
It is true, Senator.
It is a very potent way to protect.
When you're trying to tell us that kids need a third or a fourth vaccine, are you including the variability or the variable of previous infection in the studies?
No, you're not.
We're very excited to be joined here on this Human Events Special by Senator Rand Paul.
Senator, thank you so much for joining us today.
Thanks for having me, Jack.
Now, I wanted to ask and get right into it because I heard very recently, of course we've seen your dust-ups with Dr. Fauci, they've become something of a legend across the entire country, but we've also heard now that you've taken the next step because you said in your last exchange with him that there will be new rules When you're in the majority, and then you've even taken the step from further defining that as calling for a special counsel.
I wanted to know if you could unpack that for us and explain what exactly the parameters of that special counsel would be.
You know, there have been special counsels in the past that are appointed by the president.
There's a special counsel law.
What I'm talking about is something that is similar, but won't be the same thing.
This won't be under a special law.
This would simply be as the chairman of a committee with subpoena power, I will appoint someone who has the bandwidth, someone who's either been a former attorney general or assistant attorney general, or somebody that had been in the department of justice at some time, somebody who's capable of leading a large investigation.
And if I'm in charge of the committee, not only someone who's probably a lawyer, but I also envision having a special investigator that co-leads the investigation that'll be a scientist.
Because I think what happens, and one of the reasons Dr. Fauci was successful in the beginning, is that As a person who came with a medical background, I think he can talk circles around people who aren't as familiar with the science.
But there are a lot of scientists who have questions about particularly this gain-of-function research where they juice up these viruses and make them more infectious.
There are many experts that have at least the credentials of a Dr. Fauci or some of them with much greater credentials who have been saying for years There's at least one scientist who's been talking about this for 16 years before the pandemic, warning that this could come from a lab because of dangerous research, and we didn't.
The public, Congress didn't heed his warnings, and lo and behold, it's happened, and in a big way.
And I think by the time we're done with the investigation, by the time we present this to the public, I think people are going to go, holy cow, this thing came from a lab.
Not just some of us are going to believe that.
I think the majority of people will finally accept that the preponderance of evidence says that this came from a lab.
Well, I think that so much of this comes, goes, and really goes back to this idea that they kept obfuscating the contractors, and then subcontractors, EcoHealth Alliance, Peter Daszak, and then from the very start, we've already got the reports on this, that it wasn't that they were sitting there, and because, remember, of course, they told us, and of course you pulled this out from your questioning of Dr. Fauci, that we were told that the reason for these gain-of-function experiments Was that we would have a plan in place.
We would have something on the shelf, an antidote, a cure, some way to be able to treat a coronavirus or something along those lines should one appear.
Well, it seems that we didn't have one in place, but then we also go through the emails.
They weren't interested in finding cures and treatments.
It seemed like they were interested in pointing fingers and making sure that nobody found out what was going on in that Wuhan lab.
with Shijung Lee, the bat woman, the person who was in control of all of this.
Why is it at this point, Senator?
And maybe I should also ask, are you hearing more senators on your side of the aisle, of course, that are possibly even both sides of the aisle, that are interested in really getting to the bottom of the origin of all of this?
Well, the thing is, is there have been scientists, Dr. Fauci, who have said in the past that gain of function, trying to create viruses and make them more infectious might help with a cure.
should we get a pandemic virus?
Now, the three scientists I had in recently dispute that.
They say that they're not aware of any gain-of-function research that has created any virus that later came about naturally or that we were able to develop any kind of treatment from.
In fact, they say that the odds of it, the randomness of mutation being random, that there are millions of different ways that a virus can combine, and for the laboratory to guess which of the millions are going to come out of nature is remote, if not really impossible.
The other thing is, is the way we're creating vaccines now through the mRNA technology, they can sequence a virus within days of discovering it's causing a pandemic and they can create mRNA vaccines within weeks.
So the old way we used to do this, we would grow the virus and grow it for a long time and then either discover its proteins and have parts of the protein we would inject as the vaccine, or we would attenuate or lessen the virus by irradiating it, and we would inject the actual virus.
Those took a long time, but now the technology is much quicker, and the scientists we had in said that there's no real reason to have gain-of-function research.
It's not worked in the past, and they don't expect it in the future, but here's the real rub.
If you evaluate risks and benefits, and even if there were benefits, the people who oppose this, and I'm one of them, are worried that we could have a virus that has 50% mortality, that they're doing experiments that viruses that could kill half of the world's population, and then they're saying, oh, well, it's not aerosolized well, you know, it doesn't spread through the air.
Why don't we try to experiment and force its mutations such to make it aerosolized?
One of the scientists we had said that this is a death wish for civilization.
All three scientists we had came in and said that we should probably regulate this as we regulate nuclear centrifuges.
You can't just go to the corner store and buy a centrifuge.
You can't sell them to Iran or China or Russia.
There are export controls.
They think this should be treated as a weapon and that this should be very significantly guarded by protocols and or controls, and I'm all for it.
I think that there is a real danger lurking of something much worse than what we just experienced.
Well, I couldn't agree more, and I think that when you have a situation where not only is this, by the way, not being done within the confines of the United States, where at least you would hope that we would have some kind of oversight of it, this is being done behind the borders of the People's Republic of China under the auspices of a CCP-controlled research facility, which who knows what other ties they have there, what other
Methods or uses they could be looking for whatever comes out of this lab whatever they're able to cook up there But getting back to your your special counsel Proposition and really going back to dr. Fauci because your most recent Dust-up with him wasn't necessarily about the gain of function.
It was actually on the vaccines Would you be looking at having this special counsel or the investigation writ large look into the vaccine?
Approval process, this council.
I know you were talking, of course, about whether or not people on this council possibly stood to gain financially from it.
And then also this idea of whether or not they looked at natural immunity, because my wife, myself, our children, we've all had it.
We believe we have natural immunity.
We're doing just fine without the vaccine.
But did they even take a chance to consider it?
So basic conflict of interest is something that happens from the school board level all the way to Washington.
So if you imagine your local school board, if a member of the school board also sold textbooks and there was a contract for textbooks and his company was bidding for it, you think he would be allowed or she would be allowed to vote on that issue that she wouldn't have to reveal that?
This is what we're talking about here.
And you have to realize the level of resistance that Dr. Fauci has put up.
And this makes us think that there is something to hide because of his level of resistance.
They were asked at the NIH, do any doctors receive royalties?
They refused to answer.
So when you do Freedom of Information Act, you go to a court and the judge tells them, through the Freedom of Information Act, you have to reveal this.
So they finally revealed the totals, but not the specifics.
We discovered that 1,800 NIH doctors have received $193 million.
That's not a small amount of money, $193 million.
But what we want to know is which doctors, and how much, and from what companies.
Because I don't think you should be allowed to sit and vote on approving any kind of medications, but much less something that is extraordinarily profitable like this vaccine.
You shouldn't be able to vote on that if you're also getting royalties.
If someone on the committee is getting 10, $10,000, $20,000, $30,000 a year from the pharmaceutical company that makes a vaccine.
Wouldn't that preclude them?
Wouldn't that automatically make them ineligible?
But we don't know it.
And here's Fauci's response.
We don't have to tell you that there was a law passed in 1980 and that law protects us.
So my staff, we are currently looking at that law and looking how to change that law, which takes a while.
But we're also making sure that they're actually interpreting the law.
But here's the rub of this.
If Republicans win, I will be a chairman of a committee, I will use the subpoena power, and I will get all of those records.
And I will force this issue till we find out the truth.
And if there is no one on the committee receiving money, I'll announce that as well.
I'm not prejudging this.
On whether or not the virus originated in the lab, I'll bring on experts on both sides of the issue.
But I've looked at the evidence here, and there's a mountain of evidence saying it came from the lab, and almost no evidence, if any evidence, saying it came from animals.
On the issue of naturally acquired immunity, we showed Dr. Fauci a film of himself from 2004 when a woman called in and said, my daughter's had the flu.
Does she have to have a flu vaccine?
And he said, absolutely not.
The best vaccine is the virus itself better than any vaccination is having had the infection.
This was common knowledge until Dr. Fauci became, you know, director of the apparatus of public health and he became consumed with his power and he's forgotten basic immunology.
Or, even worse, he still remembers basic immunology, but he discounts it because he's afraid he can't get complete submission if people think for themselves.
And that, I think, is the arrogance of elitism.
And I think that is really his chief motivation.
He thinks he's smarter than the public, the public can't handle the truth, and so he's going to just tell you what to do and you should just listen to him.
Well, I think it's also this this sort of new idea that that government bureaucrats should just be the one, unelected, by the way, unlike yourself and other members of the House and the Senate.
Right.
He's not elected.
He's a bureaucrat.
Yet somehow we have a situation now in our country, which I you know, I don't know if your constitution is any different than mine, Senator.
But my constitution doesn't say that unelected bureaucrats get to rule by edict.
That sounds like something that Woodrow Wilson cooked up about a hundred years ago and now is coming to fruition, this idea of scientism, but really this administrative state that's come to be able to rule in charge of pretty much any decision, whether it be, obviously in the medical space, we saw the greatest, I think, example of this, but you also see it in academia.
You see it when it comes to the military in many cases.
You see it when it comes to the border.
So many other of these interest areas, we have to go along with whatever it is that the administration or the administrative state tells us, these agencies tell us, rather than actually listening to the representatives of the people.
You know, one of the things our founders understood very keenly was that the way to have and protect freedom is to check and balance, to have check and balances and vie for ambition between the two branches of government.
But the administrative state has gotten out of control.
So I recently proposed in committee that we end his position and we divide it into three and that there's approval by the Senate.
So the Senate gets to weigh in on that position because I think he has way too much power.
We had no Democrat votes in favor, but unfortunately and sadly, we lost five Republicans as well.
And this is a problem we have is we need some, even on the Republican side, people with the courage to stand up to this man, to stand up to the bureaucracy.
If we're not going to do oversight, if we're not going to have any checks and balances, and we're going to let bureaucrats become and wield unlimited power, That's a real problem.
And you're right.
So much of this comes from the administrative state from the executive branch.
It is arguable that the executive agencies are more powerful than Congress at this point.
That's why the recent Supreme Court ruling on EPA versus West Virginia is good because they ruled that if the law is ambiguous, the power can't be assumed to be there for the agencies.
The EPA, if it doesn't tell them they can do something explicitly, it's not assumed that they can do it But that's the way it's been for three or four decades now.
The Supreme Court abandoned this responsibility and said to the executive state, to the administrator, you can do whatever you want.
But the power in this new ruling, if this is consistently applied and we have more rulings like this, may be the biggest blow for a limited constitutional government that we've had in a century.
Now, Senator, we only have about two minutes left, but I wanted to know if I could just switch gears for a second here.
I understand you have to jump, but we're hearing now, so President Trump, his team, former President Trump, met with the special master.
They're going through all this with the Department of Justice.
There is a real consideration now that former President Trump could be facing a criminal indictment in relation to this classified record situation.
What do you think that says for where we are as a country in terms of everything you just spoke of?
It's very common in the third world for ex-presidents to be prosecuted and put in jail.
It's something that we prided ourselves in not being a banana republic.
The other thing that we have to recall and never forget is that the FBI abused their power in investigating when he was the nominee and the candidate in 2016.
They used the Foreign Intelligence Court, a secret court, to go after his campaign.
Even under the secret court, which is supposed to be used for foreigners, they were found to have violated the law 16 or 17 times in investigating them.
But my point has been, and my father's before me, has been that we shouldn't use foreign or foreign intelligence courts that are secret on Americans ever.
I don't care if it's Joe Biden or Hunter Biden or anybody else.
They should have the Constitution.
an Article III court, a public trial, they should be allowed to defend themselves.
And so I think it's a real crime what they did to President Trump or candidate Trump through the FISA court.
And now I think the burden's on the FBI to show that they're actually obeying the law, because many of us suspect the worst.
Just two weeks ago, an FBI agent was fired for suppressing information about Hunter Biden and suppressing that investigation.
So for people to say, oh, nothing to see here, no bias.
You got Peter Strzok still squawking around saying, oh, look what we see here, you know, and gloating over all of this from a guy who was, you know, the king of abuse and the king of abusing power when he was at the FBI and resigned in disgrace.
They still have on television Touting and going after Trump.
It's a disgrace.
But I think there's a real burden here.
As far as what the final facts will be, we'll find out over time.
But I am concerned that at the very least, the president's not being treated fairly.
Well, I couldn't agree more.
It certainly seems like something, like you say, out of a third world country, if you're looking at the Middle East or somewhere in Latin America, South America, you'd be pretty used to seeing these types of narratives.
Senator Rand Paul, thank you so much for joining us today.
Where can people go to find more about you or find more about what you're up to on a regular basis?
They can go to RandPaul.com.
All right, RandPaul.com.
Thank you very much, Senator.
Take care.
Thank you.
So there you have it, folks.
Senator Rand Paul, not mincing words.
We're very grateful for him and for the Senator's office for spending time with us here at Human Events Daily for our Sunday special, of course, powered by Turning Point USA.
I want to thank Turning Point for setting this all up, hopefully.
I don't know.
I gotta ask Charlie about the lineup there at AmericaFest.
I don't know if Senator Paul has been invited yet, but maybe.
Maybe I can pull a few strings on the back end, because I think that's exactly the type of energy, the exactly type of...
Just understanding of these issues that we need from a political perspective.
And by the way, I don't know what's going on in 2024, but there might be some discussions involving Senator Rand Paul as well for one or the other slot on the ticket.
