Speaker 1: Welcome to another episode of The Chicks on the Right Show.
We are so super stoked to have Senator Ran Paul
back with us. It's been way too long. You guys
know him as the Senator from Kentucky with the great
hair who puts out the annual Festivus report outlining all
the government waste. And now he is the chair of
the Homeland Security and Government Governmental Affairs Committee, which is
very exciting where you're loving that you're in a position
to focus on censorship and COVID. So we want to
know what your primary objectives and goals are for the
committee and how much is Fauci being in jail one
of them.
Speaker 2: You know, we'd like to recreate the committee as an
oversight committee, which means we go after the executive branch.
We uncover what they're doing with our money, We uncover
wasteful spending. There's still a lot we don't know about COVID.
For example, we know that the US government funded research
in Wuhan. We think that research led to the pandemic.
We don't know how the funding got approved. Though in
twenty fourteen there was a more torn on gain a
function research. This research that puts together two viruses and
makes them more dangerous by putting them together. There was
a moratorium from twenty fourteen to twenty sixteen when they started.
Speaker 3: The flow of money again.
Speaker 2: Though, they created a safety committee called the P three
CEO Committee. This committee is where dangerous research would go
to be analyzed to make sure it was safe before
we funded it. Well, the research in Muhan never went there.
We've discovered that there were meetings to discuss this, but
then the decision was made that it wouldn't go to
the safety committee. But they won't release the details. They
won't release the discussion, they won't release who is.
Speaker 3: Part of the meeting.
Speaker 2: And we've been going at this for three years. This
is NIH. We're going to get it. We're going to
have a cooperative administration. Jay Baticharia is a scientist, an
MD and a PhD from Stanford who's been a leader
in advocating for transparency.
Speaker 3: He's going to be head of NIH. I've spoken with him.
Speaker 2: I've also spoken with Robert Kennedy, who will be his
boss if he's confirmed at AHHS. They are both for
more transparency on everything. In addition, we're going to send
them a little legal reminder that they can use with
their career servants, and that's a subpoena. The reason we're
sending them is a subpoena is not that we don't
think that they'll react. We actually think they'll be helpful.
But our fear is that there actually will still be
career people at NIH and AHHS who will try to
hide the ball and will say basically try to defy
what they are told to do. I think illegal subpoena
is a little bit of a reminder that if they
do so, it's against the law, and there can be
legal ramifications. But we think there's still some significant information
to find out on this front.
Speaker 3: We also have legislation to try to fix this.
Speaker 2: Instead of just having this committee that may or may
not look at dangerous research, we have a bill called
the Risky Research Review Act, and this would be a
presidential and paneled commission scientists who would have the ability
to look at all grants throughout all of government, look
at the dangerous ones, bring them before for special review,
and would have the ability to stop funding them. So
this would be basically a veto power on dangerous research,
and we have bipartisan support for it. We got it
out of Committee last year, but not to the full floor.
Our hope is to get that to the full floor.
But in general, what we'd like to do is take
the committee and look at how your money's being spent,
look for waste, fraud and abuse, and basically use the
ability of the committee to issue subpoenas to go after
that record and make the executive branch produce these.
Speaker 4: Records you got. You've been fighting for this for years,
like you've got to I would think, I would imagine,
I'm not going to put words in your mouth, but
you've got to feel a little bit better just knowing
that this administration is going to be taking the helm
this is you could at least move forward a little
bit because I feel like we talked to you, gosh
a couple of years ago, and I just feel like
this is something that you've been fighting for forever, for
the American peace people to try to get answers about
this stuff.
Speaker 3: Absolutely.
Speaker 2: And the thing is is we I can show you
two documents that are two hundred and fifty pages long
where everything's redacted, and this is from the AHA chef.
Speaker 3: This isn't the.
Speaker 2: CIA, this is Health and Human Services, redacting large portion
of records because they're hiding something.
Speaker 3: So we are going to get to the bottom of this.
Speaker 2: We also think, though, that there is bioweapons research in
our own government, in the intel community that needs to
be exposed at the very least needs oversight from public officials.
So if I'm not allowed to see it, that means
nobody's looking at it, nobody in the public, nobody in Congress.
So we need oversight of our bioweapons projects as well.
So this new committee would oversee everything classified unclassified.
Speaker 3: And for example, let's say ebola.
Speaker 2: Ebola kills fifty percent of people, and let's say someone
in the intel community says, oh, well, the Chinese are
trying to aerosolize it, meaning spread through the air.
Speaker 3: Well, maybe we should do that.
Speaker 2: Well, maybe we should have a discussion of that, because
aerosolizing it, if it leaks from a lab, could kill
fifty percent of.
Speaker 3: The world's population.
Speaker 2: We're talking about a devastation beyond the Black plague, beyond
the plagues of the Middle Ages. So we're talking about
something so horrendous that could really even have the potential
of wiping out mankind. Certainly there ought to be a
little bit of a public discussion of what we're doing,
even in the classified section. So we're pushing hard on this.
You're right, the Trump administration has appointed good people, even
on the intel side. This is why I love someone
like Tulca Gabbard, who has a healthy disrespect for too
much power concentrated in secret to abuse people's civil liberties.
In fact, the current TSA went after her and put
her on a list. I mean, what kind of government
is that a former congresswoman is put on a list
to have people flying on the plane with her because
of her political views. That is outrageous and that jail.
Speaker 1: Yeah, but how confident, because people are asking, they want
us to ask you, how confident at all do you
feel about there being accountability for Anthony Fauci, who, of
course everybody is still mad at in conservative circles, and
rightly so, because it just seems like he's skated off
into retirement, he's loving his life, he's got all the
Secret Service whatever, and we're just like, wait, so he
just that's it.
Speaker 4: We get to pay his pension. That's it seems like
not very fair.
Speaker 3: Well, it's worse than that.
Speaker 2: It's not just his pension. We are spending fifteen million
dollars a year providing a limousine, a driver, and twenty
four hour security to Anthony Fauci. Meanwhile, he made more
money than the president. He's being treated as a former president.
The one thing I think will end pretty close hopefully
to day one, is that's going to end. They say
you got death threats, Well so have I. I've had
periods of time where we've had more than thirty death
threats in a month. So the thing is it's not good.
I don't want anybody to have death threats. But he
doesn't deserve the same kind of protection that the former
president cats. And I don't think his death threats or
any of that has been out of the ordinary to
most public officials. But he shouldn't be getting a limo
sent to his house every day. That is insane. But
when he was in office, he was making over four
hundred and fifty thousand dollars a year. His wife was
making over two hundred and fifty thousand. She was the
ethics counselor over at the NIH and so can you imagine,
can you imagine? But yeah, that's got to end. And
he did lie to Congress. I will refer him again
for prosecution to the new Attorney General. But the bottom
line is, I am very, very pleased with a lot
of these nominations. Tulsea Gabbard, I'm very pleased with Robert
Kennedy cash Ptel at the FBI. All these places need
a house cleaning, They need someone to look at root
out corruption and partisanship. And I don't want them to
replace partisanship with our partisanship. I want them to remove partisanship.
And so when I say that, I say that if
the FBI is going after homeschoolers or Catholics or pro
life people, that needs to end. But doesn't mean we
turn around and we use the government to go after
people protesting in favor of abortion. We get the government
out of regulating and policing speech.
Speaker 3: Speech should be completely uninterrupted by the government.
Speaker 2: It's another thing we're going to investigate in our committee,
and that is the idea that the FBI and the
Department of Homeland Security we're meeting with Twitter now. Elon
Musk revealed a lot of this through the Twitter files.
Matt Taibi and Michael Schellenberger have revealed a lot of
the private side of this, but I think they've exposed
some documents that when we receive these documents from government
where we can see the internal emails going back and
forth between the people and government who are wanting to
regulate speech, I think there's going to be some shocking
things revealed. But I believe that we will get that
either through subpoena or also with the help of the
new Trump administration.
Speaker 4: We're totally ready for it. And then when it comes
to like the waste, the fraud, the corruption that you're
famous for the Festivus Report, and then also being like
the only guy in the Senate that cares about this stuff.
So are you going to be working with doge to
to try to you know, bring this stuff to light
to try to get you know, the fat cut. Are
you going to be helping them?
Speaker 3: Absolutely?
Speaker 2: And ultimately requires Congress dose can do not a lot
more than pointing out the ways they don't have the
actual power to reduce anyways. I'm there to try to
cut the spending. But I'll give you an example of
what we're up against. Some of the worst grants that
you've seen, Like we one of the ones we exposed
was do lonely rats use more cocaine than rats are
have lots of friends and have spouses and have.
Speaker 3: A good social group. Do they use more cocaine? That
was four hundred thousand dollars.
Speaker 2: Wow, four point eight million dollars spent studying or giving
money to social media influencers in Ukraine.
Speaker 4: My favorite was the drag Queens.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that was the Bearded Ladies quartet.
Speaker 3: You know, we got it from them totally. But a
lot of.
Speaker 2: The crazy research, like Japanese quail, if you give them cocaine,
are they more sexually promiscuous? Most of these times of
most of these studies come from the National Science Foundation.
So not only have I been pointing the National Science
Foundation out and their waste and.
Speaker 3: Their crazy research. This goes all the way back to
the nineteen.
Speaker 2: Seventies with William Proxmyer doing it. But I'll give you
example of what we're up against and why this is
a difficult project and not so easy. A year ago,
Republicans with Democrats put forward a bill called the Chips Act.
Speaker 3: This was to subsidize.
Speaker 2: Giant manufacturers of microchips, Intel companies from Taiwan, companies from
around the world, and we were going to subsidize them.
But in the same bill they doubled the size of
the National Science Foundation. So my point is, you won't
get less waste. It's not like we can appoint someone
to work at the National Science Foundation.
Speaker 3: Who's going to root out waste. You have to give
them less money.
Speaker 2: If you give them twice as much money, you'll get
twice as much crazy research. And so this passed with
every Democrat vote and half the Republicans.
Speaker 3: Do you see what I'm up.
Speaker 2: Against when I vote against these spending proposals? Against explosion
of spending. It requires people in the Senate in Congress.
So what happens is there are battles every year, there
are battles in primaries, and people have to send more
conservative Republicans. There are no conservative Democrats left. William Proxmyer
was one in the nineteen seventies. They're gone. There was
a dying breed, but they've died all it's only Republicans
that will care. But unfortunately we're at about half in
the Senate, and it's about the same in the House.
Look in the House, they end up passing that two
hundred billion dollars for you crane. Mike Johnson went along
with it. He was to be a conservative and he
got he got rolled and co opted. So the battle
isn't over. And people probably who listen to your podcast
are activists and people who want to say and need
to get involved and say you can't keep sending the
same people back here.
Speaker 1: That's right, absolutely, yeah, absolutely, you're you're pegging our audience
just exactly right. That's what they care about. They care
about how much spending there is on stupid crap that
nobody wants this money spent on. Although I do worry
that the three of us are underestimating the importance of
coked out Quail.
Speaker 4: I mean it's you just don't know, queens.
Speaker 1: I mean, that's exactly right.
Speaker 3: True.
Speaker 4: Possibly, well, we want to be.
Speaker 2: Respectful or policing the border in Paraguay. Yes, yes, I
think people are concerned about the border, but they just
soon we spend money on our border, before we start
sending money to the border of Ukraine or the border
of Paraguay.
Speaker 1: You think, yeah, exactly, well, we want to be respectful
of your time, centered Paul. We appreciate it. We know
you're on a time schedule, and so thank you so
much for being with us today.
Speaker 2: We really appreci Yeah, thank you.
Speaker 4: That's