Will Cain Country - Senator Rand Paul: We Won't Forget About Fauci

Episode Date: November 8, 2023

Story #1: Former President Donald Trump is trouncing President Joe Biden in a recent poll. Have the Democrats finally seen enough? Story #2: Israel, Ukraine, and Dr. Anthony Fauci. A conversation with Senator Rand Paul (R-KY). Story #3: Responding to your feedback on how to fix a raccoon problem. Tell Will what you thought about this podcast by emailing [e-mail] Follow Will on Twitter: @WillCain Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

For a limited time at McDonald's, enjoy the tasty breakfast trio. Your choice of chicken or sausage McMuffin or McGrittles with a hash brown and a small iced coffee for $5.5 plus tax. Available until 11 a.m. at participating McDonald's restaurants. Price excludes flavored iced coffee and delivery. One. Donald Trump is. trouncing Joe Biden so much so that you have to ask the question whether or not the Democratic candidate for president will be Joe Biden. Two, Israel, Ukraine, and Dr. Anthony Fauci, a conversation with Senator Randpaul.

Three, what's the best way to rid yourself of a raccoon? Answers from you, the listeners of the Will Kane podcast. It's the Will Kane podcast on Fox News Podcast. What's up? And welcome to Wednesday. As always, I hope you will download Ray and review this podcast wherever you get your audio entertainment, Apple, Spotify, or at Fox News podcast. You can watch the Will Kane podcast on YouTube, leave it a five-star review, and follow me on Twitter at Will Kane. I've gotten a lot of feedback recently. There's been a lot of interaction with you, the viewer, with you, the listener. I would ask you a favor. There's a sentiment that I gather from many of you out there that this experience of us together and the place that we find ourselves here in the media landscape is somewhat unique. I'll tell you that in the coming months, it's going to even get more, more unique, more frequent. It's going to get bigger.

And as we embark on a new adventure here on the Wilcane podcast, what I would ask you to do is to tell your friends, to share with them, what you gather, why this works, why it's important, why you listen to the Wilcane podcast. And I will tell you, we will continue to listen to you. Last week, I had an email from a listener asking me to post a text version of my monologue last Monday talking about how it is we could have seen anti-Semitism grow on college campuses and that it's directly connected to the growth in Marxism and, for decades now, anti-Americanism, within American colleges. And I want to say that's something we're going to work on. That's going to be part of this growing experience.

We're going to put out text versions of our monologue. We'll create communities where you can join. We're going to find new ways for this content to reach you and for it to be more useful to you in sharing or consuming. however it works for you. We're going to continue, and we're going to step on the gas pedal very soon in making this something that is indispensable, I hope, for your media diet. On that note, I got this email from Anita Langdon. She said, Will, I cannot find part three of your history of Israel series. Help. So interesting. Thank you. Anita, you can't find it because it hasn't yet been published. I'm going to do that very soon. My goal will be next week to have

what I think will be the final installment, part three in my three-part history series on the conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians. It's a big one. I left you off with war and my intention was to pick up there with World War II, the 1948 war, the 1967 war. the 1973 war. I'm going to cover a much broader swath of history is what I believe. So I'm jamming a lot of history right now on that time period. And I want to make it, you know, something that is worth your time. So look for that next week. Also, hang in to the end of this episode. On Monday's episode, I told you about a problem of a buddy of mine who has a raccoon infestation. And he doesn't know how to deal with it, how to get rid of him after he's trapped a raccoon. What's the best way

to dispose of a pest? Well, I heard from you, a lot of you emailed in with your suggestions. So if you'll hang in, I think you're going to enjoy this conversation today with Senator Rand Paul, who I think is independent and unique, a real voice that is necessary in Washington, D.C., and he has a new book out called Deception. It's about COVID and Dr. Anthony Fauci and the lies all of the lies that we're told and continued to be covered up and really as you know impacted our lives and I don't think we can just let that go we can't just let COVID disappear into the past because I promise you it's not in the past it continues to play a role and Senator Paul has pointed that out I mean we're still continuing to defy a judge's order I mean he has accused the FBI

and the DOJ to continue defying a judge's order in Minnesota manipulating social media. And it continues to form, I think, much of how the government sees free speech and its relationship with us. So much so that I think that's my biggest takeaway from now, story number one. A New York Times-Siena poll shows that in five of six swing states, Donald Trump is absolutely trouncing Joe Biden. Again, this is a New York Times Siena poll. In the state of Nevada, Donald Trump is up 11 points on Joe Biden, 52 to 41 in that hypothetical matchup. In the state of Georgia, Donald Trump is up six points, 49 to 43. In Arizona, Donald Trump is up five points. In Arizona, Donald Trump is up five points.

49 to 44. In Michigan, Michigan, Trump is up five points, 48 to 43. In Pennsylvania, Donald Trump is up four points over Joe Biden, 48 to 44. Those, all five of those states were states won by Joe Biden in 2020. The only swing state polled by the New York Times in Sienna that did not tip in favor of Donald Trump was Wisconsin, where Joe Biden has a three-point lead, 47 to 44. Now, a couple of thoughts here. Since I normally number my stories, one, two, three, let's go with sort of a law school outline form. A, this is absolute red alert for Democrats. absolute red alert

if Joe the only thing that can get in the way of Joe Biden being the nominee for president in his own party as an incumbent is the inability to beat Donald Trump Joe Biden I have believed from the beginning was

a placeholder nobody voted for Joe Biden they only voted against Donald Trump Joe Biden was not, he inspired nothing. He inspired no, no love, no hope, no hope and change in the days of Obama. No, no big turnout at rallies, nothing. The only thing anyone went for was a pro or anti-Trump vote. And as such, if he can't serve the purpose of beating Donald Trump, well, then he has no use to the Democrat Party.

and as far-fetched as it seems, I have no hesitation that the powers that be in the DNC would exert every single potential pressure point and power over Joe Biden to step away. There's still time as we speak right now for another nominee to step in. Well, not that be Gavin Newsom, who's running a shadow campaign. He's absolutely running a shadow campaign for president. Well, now, that's Gavin Newsom getting on the ballot. It would have to happen soon. It would have to happen like in the next month or two.

But you could get Gavin Newsom. You could get Michelle Obama onto that ballot. Now, would they have the ground game? Would they have the infrastructure? They would have the support, I believe, of the Democratic National Committee. Because, again, if Biden can't beat Trump, what's the point of Biden? David Axelrod, the former big campaign advisor to Barack Obama, floated it this weekend on the Sunday morning shows. He said the Democrats should consider replacing Joe Biden.

That could happen with a nominee, a candidate getting on the ballots. And, you know, like Dean Phillips, who's on the ballot in New Hampshire, where Joe Biden is not on the ballot, running against Biden, or it could be going to the Democratic National Convention. wherein because of pressure exerted by the outside forces, Joe Biden turns over his delegates endorsing another candidate. They have to beat Trump. That is their, look, that's the reason for being. We've seen almost every political issue near and dear to the hearts of the left become somewhat hypocritical over the last five to ten years, turn on themselves. Anti-war caucus becomes pro-war. in Ukraine. Free speech in the 90s has turned into the regime of censorship over the last five

years. There's really, if you're asked to define what it means largely to be a Democrat, number one is anti-Donald Trump. And so if Joe Biden can't beat Trump, they will replace Biden. B, I don't think under any circumstances will, you know, when I say the powers that be, I feel irresponsible in that it's too generic. But I think that encompasses the mainstream media industrial complex, legacy media. I think it encompasses social media. I think we've learned the role that social media and. The intelligence agencies and the law enforcement agencies and the Department of Justice in the United States have worked together to censor speech, including speech, on Donald Trump. If you question the election of 2020, the powers that be will not, well, they will do everything in their power to not, allow the next president to be Donald Trump.

In 2020, we saw, you know, open propaganda. we saw the Hunter Biden laptop story crushed reported from the New York Times crushed nobody would report on it 51 intelligence officers high level CIA heads called it Russian disinformation social media obliterated it from public consciousness we saw massive mail-in balloting that we were told we were told it was because of COVID the dangers of having to go to the ballot box everyone should receive a ballot and you can mail it in We saw the changes in state laws to adapt to that new reality. But the truth is, that was political. It wasn't scientific. It wasn't for our health. That was for our election. If anyone questioned the election after the fact, they were suppressed.

There is no way the powers that be will not marshal every muscle they can to stop Donald Trump. Now, I don't know about you. I feel so highly propagandized. I mean, we all did during COVID. We know that. But I feel so highly propagandized in everything, everything. Look, I feel highly propagandized on the war in Israel. I do.

From both sides. I mean, again, I don't know how you feel, but everything I consume, everything I read, everything I watch, I watch with a fairly healthy level of skepticism. I do. And I think to myself, I'm going to go, I've got to look into that. We've got to see what I can trust, what I believe. Again, I think we all were probably left with the scars of skepticism coming out of COVID. I felt skeptical before that when it comes to reporting on, you know, racial injustice.

I don't think we were, I think very rarely were we given facts and truth. We're only given conclusions. That's the thing. That's what journalism has become. It's become the great bequeathment of conclusions. You're told the end, right? You're told. And look, sometimes I think to myself, I don't give you enough conclusion.

I think a lot of people want to, I'm not, you probably don't. You're listening to me. So, you know, Pete, Hegset and Rachel Campos Duffy sometimes make fun of me and sometimes praise me for like, you know, how caught up an analysis I get. But that's in part because everywhere else I turn, all I get is conclusions. I just get, hey, this is what you're supposed, this is your takeaway. This is what you're supposed to think. And then when pressed on these things, on why, I, you're a racist. You're a science denier. You're an election denier. You're a vaccine denier. You're whatever. You know, it's, it's, it's, it's,

It's ad hominem should you not just forget reject if you won't just swallow it whole, you know, enthusiastically accept the conclusion. And I have zeroed out that entire, you know, world of propaganda and requirement of acceptance of conclusions will be heightened over the next 12 months. and marshaled. You know what? Marshalled against any Republican. It will. That's probably the world we're living in that we don't fully recognize just yet. We think this is all about Donald Trump.

And I think it is very heavily about Donald Trump, but we're going on year, we're going on year, what, eight of the opposition being defined by Donald Trump. do you think if by whatever mechanism, whatever happens, Ron DeSantis ends up the nominee of the Republican Party, it won't be all in turn marshalled against Ron DeSantis? It will be. On that, I have no doubt. Because I think the public and the media and whatever, 48% of the population has been conditioned for eight years to think this is the normal course of being, that we are at an, that democracy is at risk, that we are an existential moment, and then we use all those same

mechanisms against DeSantis. Now that leads me to see. They may not use, again, I'm sorry for using they. I think they is, you know, insufficient for you. It's not, it's not, you shouldn't think they is enough. But I just described it. The intelligence apparatus, the media. you know, the American government agencies, there's a chance that it's not marshal to the same

level of passion against Nikki Haley. Because I think she is on the consensus side, the consensus bipartisan side, which permanent Washington is in lockstep with on foreign policy and war. But it will in some part. But she, of all the candidates, she would be most, insulated against the same kind of treatment as Donald Trump. And that takes me back to this New York Times Siena poll. I should point out, other candidates are also doing well against Joe Biden. I saw somebody say Nikki Haley's polling kind of represents generic Republican, and people have posted that generic Republican would win this election in a landslide. But right now, if these polls reflect reality, and I think we should also be skeptical of polling, I think we should. It's been wrong, often.

But if it's accurate, Donald Trump wins the election easily. He wins 300 electoral votes easily. But DeSantis beats Biden. Haley beats Biden. Generic Republican trounces Biden. So this is certainly a poll that will please Donald Trump. But more than that, I think it does terrify the Democratic. crap party. And that my next takeaway is D. That's now. How is it going to get better for Joe Biden?

In the next 12 months, you could expect, I think you should expect, I'm expecting, a serious recession. All of my friends who are in finance and not Kool-Aid drinkers of, you know, stock markets always up, up and away believe that we are headed for a deep and traumatic recession. I hope we're not. I hope they can, you know, give us the proverbial soft landing. I've talked about it on this podcast. I mean, I own stocks like anybody else. I don't want to see them crushed, you know, but inflation is continuing to be a problem. Interest rates are incredibly high.

At some point, that's going to have a reckoning effect on, you know, all these commercial real estate loans that are sitting out there hoping to make it to a lower interest rate environment. And that's going to threaten banks if those commercial real estate loans go belly up. If banks get in trouble. And we've got to do something about inflation. It's punishing everybody, the poorest among us. So you're going to have, and there's nothing that affects an election more than the economy. So in the next 12 months, Joe Biden can be looking at a serious economic recession. On top of that, you know, he's got a potential war on two fronts.

He's got this proxy war in Europe against Russia. and a spiraling, metastasizing war that threatens to engulf the United States in the Middle East. On top of that, there's the presence of RFK Jr., who in other polls shows something like between 15 and 20 percent. Now, how much of that's coming from Democrats and how much that's coming from would-be Donald Trump voters? I don't know. My suspicion is it's coming more from Democrats. I don't know for sure, but I think it more negatively impacts Joe Biden. Not to mention, there's talk of a third-party no-labels candidate.

Most no-label's candidates, I think, have, I mean, in this environment, it would be hurting Joe Biden. So between, you know, RFK Jr., third-party no-label's candidates, an economic recession, and war, what's going to happen that's going to be an improvement for Joe Biden's conditioned in these polls right now? Well, that takes me to, I guess, E, which would be a conviction of Donald Trump in a court. This New York Times-Sienna poll suggests that it would flip. It would be much worse for Donald Trump if he were convicted in any one of these cases. And look, we can have that conversation and have that argument about that's the point of the cases to take him out as a candidate. But, you know, the casual voter out there, and not just. just a casual voter. I don't want to say that because I have a lot of Republican friends

who are very skeptical of Donald Trump and whether or not he can win a general election. And you see this and they go, well, what about all his trials? What if he's in jail? And look, let's be real. That's has, I mean, does that make Trump a martyr that garners more votes? Or does it scareway, you know, would-be Republican voters? Anyway, the takeaway from this New York Times Senate, well, the biggest takeaway for me is less about Donald Trump and more about, I don't see how the Democrat Party will be able to move forward with Joe Biden.

We'll be right back with more of the Will Kane podcast. It is time to take the quiz. It's five questions in less than five minutes. We ask people on the streets of New York City to play along. See how you do. Take the quiz every day at thequiz.com. Then come back here to see how you did. Thank you for taking the quiz.

Following Fox's initial donation to the Kerr County Flood Relief Fund, our generous viewers have answered the call to action across all Fox platforms and have helped raise $7 million. Visit go.com forward slash TX flood relief to support relief and rebuilding efforts. Story number two. Dr. Anthony Fauci is guilty of. of perjury, that is what Senator Ram Paul lays out in his new book. Deception. In this conversation with the senator, we talk about his case, the case he lays out against Fauci, the big science

industry, American government agencies, and perpetuating lies on the American public on the origins of COVID-19, the efficacy of masks, the efficacy of the vaccine, the necessity for children to take the vaccine, the role of natural immunity. We talk about how everything got so corrupted. And as an independent voice in the Senate, I wanted to talk to him about Ukraine and Israel. Here is Senator Rand Paul. Senator Rand Paul, so great to have you today here on the Will Kane podcast. You've got a new book out, Deception, The Great COVID Coverup. At times, it reads like a spy thriller. At other times, it's making the case for what went down throughout what we all know of as the COVID pandemic for several years, a TikTok of what went down.

You know, for anyone that's not trapped in the CNN or MSNBC, I would say, or even New York Times, at times, information bubble, they're somewhat well aware of the deception that has taken place when it comes to COVID. So anyone that reads deception, what do you think would be the biggest surprise they would learn throughout this story in your book? I think how extensive the cover-up is, that it's not just Anthony Fauci and a few scientists, that it really reaches its into every nook and cranny of government. We think at least eight different departments of government were involved with funding the research in Wuhan. And so the cover-up involves hundreds of people and is, in essence, the conspiracy does.

And people say, well, how could that happen? Where hundreds of people all got together, evil people in a room and rub their hands together. It's not really that kind of conspiracy. And the comedian George Carlin put it well. He said that a conspiracy or a conspiracy theory is not necessary where interest converge. The interest is they all funded research in Wuhan and now they're all scurrying to cover it up. So what we've found is resistance from an extensive array of officials throughout our government who don't want to release any information that connects them to funding of this dangerous research

in Wuhan. Yeah, Senator, and the interesting thing is there, as you lay it out, and it plays to the human instinct that, you know, people aren't necessarily capable of vast conspiracy, largely because what's more common than masterminds is incompetence. So it's hard for everyone to get on the same page to pull off that level of deception. But if interests converge, you can get everybody sort of pulling in the same direction. But your book only covers, in part, the Wuhan laboratory cover-up. You also talk about, you know, the efficacy of masks. You talk about school shutdowns, the necessity for vaccines and children, the efficacy of the vaccines at large. I'm curious as you, you know, what was the motivational factor that continued the

deception on, that it metastasized from covering up how it started, but it continued on into keeping the public in the dark about all these other aspects of COVID. I would say for the idea that the virus leaked from the lab, the cover up is the idea that you would be responsible basically for the pandemic, that the deaths, the millions of people who died, you would bear some responsibility, Anthony Fauci and those who approved of the money. For the rest of it, for the idea of the lockdowns and the schools and the centralization of the authority, that to me I think is consistent with the philosophy of elitism. That is that we should hire government experts, the experts in all different conditions. They would be in Washington

and that the people are too stupid to take care of themselves, that Americans can't make wise decisions and so they should be made for them. And if you look at the discussions, particularly back and forth between Francis Collins and Anthony Fauci, you actually have them saying the quiet part out loud many times. They will say, well, this wouldn't be good for science. And I'm not sure the people would be ready to understand and they might get too many masks if we tell them that only the N95 mask works. So we're going to tell them all the masks work. But many of these lies I think actually caused lies. So for example, if your mother or grandmother was 75 years old and her husband had COVID and she's taking food into him but wants to protect herself, if she puts a cut up

piece of a t-shirt over her face, it isn't any protection at all. It's zero. So Fauci, by parading around in a mask with Washington Nationals on it that was made of cotton. He's not only giving bad advice, he's giving vice that could kill you. Because if you're really trying to protect yourself in a difficult situation, you don't wear a cloth mask because they just don't work, frankly. And so I begrudge him that. There was also a year when we had no vaccine. There was no way to prevent getting this or getting very sick. During that period of time, if we had acknowledged natural immunity, what a good public official would have done and said, let's have the nurses in the nursing home be people who have already recovered. As soon as people recover,

let's put them in the COVID wing. Let's keep the disease together, but let's keep someone taking care of them that goes in and out and goes home that can't bring the disease back into the hospital. Ultimately, you would want this in all the nursing homes, someone to protect. In fact, I told this to Trump's security detail and they didn't listen to me. I called Secret Service and I said, put the young men and women around him, we've already had COVID, they'll block him from getting it, at least from them. But people discounted natural immunity. Because of this, I think lives were lost, but it was because we centralized the authority, and we just said, whatever Lord Fauci told us, we were going to believe without questioning it, and that was a big mistake.

You know, I appreciate the philosophical nature of your answer, and I had no way disagree with it, that it's an ideology or philosophy of elitism. And then you centralized decision-making, but when you centralize decision making, you also allow for a more easily accessible corruption. There's fewer people, fewer entities, fewer agencies that you have to reach. And when I look at everything you laid out, and I neglected to mention as well, natural immunity, I'm glad you brought that up. As you laid out the sequence of deceptions throughout the pandemic, it's hard not to consider

the role of money. It's hard not to consider the role of the pharmaceutical industry. And so while I appreciate you talking about the ideology of elitism, I wonder, what do you think was the role of money? Well, there are several instances where we do bring this up and we do discuss this. For example, Christian Anderson was one of the lieutenants, one of the virologists around giving advice in the early days to Anthony Fauci. In private, he said that he believed that the virus had been manipulated and that the evidence pointed towards it coming from the lab. He indeed also said explicitly, this is not a fringe theory, this is not a conspiracy theory, this is the most likely theory. Three days later, at the behest of Anthony Fauci, he becomes the lead author on a paper that says you're crazy if you think it came from the lab and that it is absolutely without question, not a construct of a lab.

Two months later, he gets a $9 million grant signed by Anthony Fauci. So there is money changing hands, billions of dollars. So when Anthony Fauci says, if you criticize him, you are criticizing science, and that's the most absurd, arrogant thing I've ever heard from someone pretending to be a scientist, but really what you're questioning when you question him is the business of science. Right. Billions of dollars changing hand. And I'll give you one more quick example.

The vaccine committees, I want to know if any scientists got royalties from the manufacturers of the vaccine and they were on the committee determining whether we should be forced to take these vaccines. They won't tell us. The fact that we won't tell us makes me think they have something to hide. And one of the reforms that I'm going to come forward with out of the research for this book is that we have to make it transparent. Every scientist is going to have to reveal their royalties. I'm trying to get Democrats interested in this. I think ultimately I'm going to win this battle. But I'm going to make sure that every scientist, their royalties, have to be revealed to the public.

Well, you know, I like the term that you use there, the business of science. And if we, if we explore the role of money in the business of science, you can see its effect. You can see its effect in the in the advertising support, in the foundational support of science magazines that were on the wrong side of this from the very beginning. You can see it in the public officials and funding and granting research. And you can see it obviously in the role it played in vaccine mandates and undercutting anything that would prove to be an alternative to the vaccine. from hydroxychloroquine, you know, there's a debate over the efficacy of ivermectin, but that debate was kind of strangled in the crib. It was never truly seen the light of day.

And so, you know, when I bring up money, I just, it doesn't take a, it doesn't take a ton of cynicism. And I think it takes zero partisanship to say, the common thread here that ties natural immunity to the Wuhan virus Institute of Virology, is the role of big science and money and the pharmaceutical industry? Well, after I was infected early on in the disease, I came back and I wasn't wearing a mask and all the reporters would run up to me, these 23-year-old reporters with three masks, who've never had a science course in any kind of educational setting. And they're like, why aren't you wearing a mask?

And I said, well, I have immunity now. I've been infected. And like, no, you don't. You don't know how long you'll have it and this and that. But we had this whole sort of overwhelming idea that natural immunity didn't work. There was a Harvard professor by the name of Martin Koldorf, and he had a great response to this. He said, we learned about immunity in 486 BC during the Athenian plague, and we knew about it until three years ago. And then we forgot about it for three years, and now we're starting to learn about natural immunity again.

But natural immunity is free. And what I would tell people about it and the protective effects, they would say, oh, you're want everybody to get infected. If they don't die, then they have immunity. It's like, you know, how insulting. What I'm saying is a lot of people got infected, whether they're vaccinated or not, tell them the truth. There still is one big truth they haven't told us. Most people over 65 got vaccinated. So let's say I got two vaccines and I've had COVID twice. What are the chances I go to, if I do nothing else, what are the chances I go to the hospital or I die from COVID? They know the answer to that. I suspect it's very close to zero unless you're very ill for another reason. So we

could probably tell those who are at risk, over 65, they don't need any more vaccines. But why aren't they telling us that? They're just saying, oh, there's a new one. There'll be a new one every three months. Keep taking it. And it makes me think they're salesmen for big pharma instead of scientists. And it makes me disbelieve them. And they're the ones that are causing this whole hesitancy in this idea that nobody believes in government. It's because they're not being honest or forthright with us. I want to save some time for you to talk about foreign policy today before you have to head to the floor and take a vote. But a few more questions on deception. I've read the book, and I know the rough outlines of the theories that lead us toward the truth.

In the end, what happened? Was it that the NIH, through EcoHealth Alliance, was helping fund gain of function research around American law, subverting American law, outsourcing it to Chinese laboratories? And in your estimation, in pursuit of what, Senator Paul? in pursuit of a prophylactic vaccine, in pursuit of a weapon that the Chinese were subverting, what was the point of all of this? What's the truth? I think we don't know for sure, and we can't say for certain that it was for vaccine development or for weapon development. It argues against it being a weapon development to release a weapon in your own country. It just doesn't seem to make sense unless it was an accident. They're working on a weapon and it

accidentally got released. With the vaccine, we have a great deal of information that a fellow by the name of General Zoe Yusin, who's in the People's Liberation Army, a prominent communist and a scientist. He has a vaccine developed already in February 2020. Most scientists look at it and say it takes about four or five months a minimum to get this vaccine moving, so they had to know in November. We also know in November three scientists in Dr. She's lab got sick with the pneumonia of unknown origin, with ground glass capacities in the x-ray consistent with COVID. We also know that Zoe Yusin, the general, who develops the vaccine,

vaccine who gets it so early, in April 2020 is dead. He either falls or is pushed from a tall building. We don't know the circumstances of that, whether it was suicide or it was intentional that someone pushed him, but it's very, very suspicious. The best theory I have is that Zoe Euston commissioned and worked with Dr. Shee, the bat scientist, to create a very virulent, a more significant coronavirus that infected humans. So they added in that cleavage site, the fur and cleavage site to make it enter into the cells better, but then when they were working on it, either attenuating it to make it a vaccine or doing something in the lab, people in the lab got sick in November 2019. And the way a pandemic works is that you don't go from zero to

millions, it's got to ratchet up. It does it exponentially, but throughout November and December, it's doing this. And they knew it. We have pictures of parking lots full of patients. We have the Wuhan Institute with no cell phone traffic for a week when we think they're trying to clean up the lab after the outbreak. But by January, when it hits, it's going like crazy. And still, the Chinese government says, oh, we don't think it's transmitted human to human. They were absolutely lying from the beginning. And what do you think, and finally last on this, what accountability do you expect? What should happen with Dr. Anthony Fauci for this deception?

He lied to Congress. That's a felony. If he had been a Trump official, he'd have been in jail long ago. I've referred him for prosecution, and Merrick Gardland has, you know, responded saying he got our letter, but there's been no investigation that we know of. We know he lied, not because I say so, but because his private emails contradict his public statements, and they show that he was lying. Without question, we have him dead to rights in his own words, he was lying, and nothing will be done. to me, culpability is important, but I don't have control. I can't prosecute. People are all over the time, why don't you prosecute? I'm not the prosecution. I can't do it. But the other thing I want to have happen is I want this type of research that we're paying for through our tax dollars to be circumscribed, to be regulated, to have a real committee

of scientists looking at what is worthwhile, what is not worthwhile, and not just saying, hey, wow, wouldn't it be cool if we took Ebola and see if we get, which is 50% deadly, and see if we can make it aerosolized, that's a death wish. So I'm not giving up on this until we either get culpability and or new law that says we can't do this research without more oversight. All right, Senator, you have an independent voice, a very, very independent voice in Washington, C. when it comes to our foreign policy, pretty much our bipartisan foreign policy posture across the globe. I want to start with Ukraine. Ukraine funding has been a never spending spickett out of Washington, D.C. What do you think should be the perspective or the role

of the United States in whatever is supposed to happen there in Eastern Europe between Ukraine and Russia? What should be the position of the United States? You know, people describe us as a great power, as a world power, as a superpower. I think it would be trying to end the war. I don't think it's possible that Ukraine can defeat Russia, nor do I think it's possible now that Russia can defeat Ukraine. The commander-in-chief of the Ukrainian army recently, as this week said, he thinks it's a stalemate. When you get to a stalemate, somebody should be looking for an off-ramp. Graham Allison is a Harvard professor who's written several books on foreign policy, and I really respect his views. He said that there is a danger that escalation, when you

trap someone, when you corner someone, if Putin feels like there's no way out, he's either going to be deposed or have to admit to a terrible loss that the reaction could be an escalation to nuclear war, even if he thinks he can get away with limited nuclear war. But one atomic bomb killing 100,000 people is a horrific thing, and then there's the danger that either we or some in Europe respond. I think we should try to avoid that. I think there is a way to avoid that. And one of the answers is maybe a ceasefire in place with Ukraine saying, you're in our property and wants you out, and we're not going to accept that you have part of eastern Ukraine or Crimea, but we're now going to negotiate. With Russia saying,

can't move us, we're not leaving, but we're not going any further and we're not going to be bombing your cities. And then the talks would begin. I think that's what we should be asking for, but we have people in Congress, particularly in my caucus, who believe in this sort of first-grade understanding of foreign policy that war ends in unconditional surrender. That rarely happens. It happened after Japan, after two atomic weapons, we had unconditional surrender. Germany was utterly defeated. But I would say the vast majority of wars, there's not a complete victory and they have to be negotiated. I think that's what we should use our leadership role is to try to bring peace because, look, even if your only goal is to preserve what's left of Ukraine and its

people, you should want peace because the country is being bombed into oblivion and it's a disaster. And so I think peace is what we should look for and there could be a negotiated settlement. Yeah, and I saw that you wrote that on one of the rare occasions where you might agree with Henry Kissinger, that compromise could look something like Ukraine can trade and join economic with whoever it wants, elect the government that it wants, but it won't be invited into NATO with sort of the outline of something you described. But because we only have a few more minutes together, I want to ask you the same question. What should be the American perspective? What should we do? What position should we take when it comes to the Middle East? When it comes to Israel

and its current war with Hamas? I think the first thing to acknowledge is Israel is in a perilous position. They've been there a long time. The neighbors around them are hostile. And that that you can't allow or condone people to come into your country and kill hundreds of people at a music festival. You can't condone or allow people to come in and just kill entire families within their villages and their homes. And so I think Israel has to be allowed to make their own decisions on it. We do give them a lot of money. We give them a lot of weapons. It gives us the right to have an opinion. But ultimately, they're going to have to make some of their decisions. And ultimately, there will be a decision made. The thing is, is Hamas wants to kill their

Their goal was to kill civilians than they did, and women and children. Israel's goal isn't to do that, but it is an inadvertent part of the response is that women and children are dying. And so there is a point at which Israel will have to make a decision, are we creating more terrorists than we kill? And this has been a decision around the world. You know, if we drone some goat herder in Mali, did we get rid of terrorism or will all of his kinfolk now become terrorists and hate America?

So there is a point, and I'm not saying Israel isn't justified. Israel's justified in responding. They should try to wipe out Hamas. But I'm a believer that at some point people in Israel and the United States should be saying, you know what? If Gaza would have leadership that would recognize Israel and renounce violence, we could help assist in a port making. There's many rich Gulf sheikshams. We could allow them to come in and make a port. There might have to be Israeli security at the port, but allow Gaza to become a trading port and allow economic wealth to come in. Most of the people there don't believe Israel would allow that. That's why I think people need to say it over and over again. If they renounce violence, if they recognize

Israel, there could be great prosperity for a city that lives in utter poverty. But we're a long way from getting the people in Gaza to believe that. That's why I think it needs to be spoken over and over again by Israel primarily, but also the United States. Well, I'm concerned, and as you lay out that, which does sound, and in your own acknowledgment, somewhat not far-fetched, but maybe starry-eyed, that type of ending to this story. I think that I'm concerned of something that seems less far-fetched or starry-eyed, which is American involvement. How concerned are you with the potential for American involvement, either because proxies like Iran begin to get more overtly and undeniably involved, but how concerned are you about America

in the Middle East? Very much. I mean, this goes back to 1983 in the bombing of the Beirut, the marine barracks there. There's always a danger. A tragedy like that brings us into a war. Reagan made a difficult decision. He was criticized by many of the neo-concertives. He said it's too messy and we're just not staying. We have 900 troops in Syria. That's a ridiculously small number of people to have in the middle of a war zone. What are they? They're a target for Iranian proxies and they're a tripwire to getting us in. So I argued two weeks ago on the Senate floor that we shouldn't be in Niger. They've had a coup, and there's an illegitimate government with the democratically elected president in jail. We should not have troops there now that there's been a

coup. I would argue the same thing in Syria. That is a war, but my opponents will say, oh, it's not a war in Syria. Well, they're shooting at each other all the time. It's essentially a long, smoldering civil war now in Syria. We never voted to put them in there. So I'll force a vote on this again. With the Niger war power's resolution, I only got 11 votes. So the vast majority of people just don't care, but I care because I know young members of the military and I don't want them set into the Middle East because we had a barracks bombed in Syria or in Iraq or in Niger or any of these far-flung places. Bottom line for me is it has to be a vote and it's the most difficult vote any legislator ever makes and it should be whether to go to war. But we're at war

in all these places and our troops are there based on the 9-11 authorization to use force, which has nothing to do with the world as we see it today. And I think it's our obligation now. Not to say a generation ago those people voted for that. We should have to vote now, vote up or down. And I will force them to vote up or down on whether we're in Syria, and we will continue. And it is my hope that we are not sending soldiers into Israel or Gaza. And I don't think there's any military reason we should.

What a legacy if you're able to accomplish those two things, holding Dr. Anthony Fauci, accountable in returning America to having congressional declarations of war. That would be one hell of a legacy, Senator. I know you have a floor of a. I really appreciate your time, Senator Rand Paul. Thanks for having me. There you go. I hope you enjoyed that conversation with Senator Rand Paul. Again, check out his book, Deception. I mean, it does at times read like a spy thrill. At other times it reads like a legal case. You can see what level of propaganda deception was perpetuated on the American public through the past several years.

We're going to step aside here for a moment. Stay tuned. From the Fox News Podcasts Network. Hey there, it's me. Kennedy, make sure to check out my podcast. Kennedy saves the world. It is five days a week, every week. Download and listen at Fox Newspodcast.com or wherever you listen to your favorite podcast. Story number three. On Monday's episode of the Wilcane podcast, I laid out for you a conundrum of a buddy of mine.

He had an infestation of raccoons, and he has one, and he trapped one. and asked me, he said, look, man, I'm not a hunter. I don't love doing this. How am I supposed to get rid of this raccoon after I trap it? He had a traumatic experience in trying to kill it with a pellet gun. Sounds like it took him like 10 shots. It's like, what do I do? My advice to him was, you know, the most humane way I could come up with was drown the raccoons. And I did not chastise him. I don't like, look, I don't like killing either. Even though I like hunting, I certainly don't like killing for no purpose or gratuitously. And so I empathize with him.

It's not easy. So you, the listener of the Will Kane podcast, sent me in a lot of suggestions on how you could handle this problem. Here are your suggestions. This is from W. Fish. It says, hey, well, the most humane way I came up with was to hook a hose to an exhaust of any vehicle and wrap tarp around the cage and insert the hose into a sealed area. They nicely fall asleep and then pick your poison. I had another man named Dustin Dupree right in from Salisbury, North Carolina, say he also

has used the mini gas chamber for a dog that had to be put down. And before we all freak out about that, let me just say, I've had to put down a dog before. Not me personally. I went to the vet. He was my guy, Leon. He was my Doberman that I had for 12 years. And I'm telling you, I got him when I was 20, 21, single dude, had him until I was in my 30s. He was a member of my, my wife loved him as much as me.

This was my guy, right? Violet is trying to live up to Leon. Most amazing dog I've ever had. in the end I had I had to put him down and it's awful I've never done it myself I've worked on a ranch and watched as we've had to put down horses so I understand the facts of life but this guy said he had to do that for a dog and same thing he used a lawnmower with a hose and they go away peacefully my buddy told me his wife had looked up online the most humane way to do away with the pest and several people did say this is the way I think what a production, you know? What a production. Close off your garage. Tarp up a trap.

Terrible. Some others have said you can actually work to keep the raccoons out of your property. Audra Doobie says, dilute ammonia with water in a spray bottle and spray the area you want the pests away from. I've done it. It works. I only had to spray one time, but you can reapply as needed. Another person told me, let me find this one, said, vinegar also works. Here it is. Thomas Shannon from Madison, Wisconsin.

Moved to Wisconsin seven years ago and found raccoons. Realized pouring vinegar around the base exterior of a home in the spring and fall makes it inhospitable to raccoons. They hate it and they move on somewhere else. Cats enjoy the outdoor prowling. They enjoy so much. Great podcast as always. Thank you, Tom. That's great for the future, but we've got to deal with the current problem of getting rid of these raccoons.

Michael Hassinger writes in, I would say trap and dispatch with a silence 22 from above the ground as a safe backstop. Drowning, he says, still seems a bit inhumane, not the way I'd want to go, but my sensibilities may be a little soft. Well, I don't know, Michael. I don't think you're soft with the execution style 22. I don't have a silencer. Pete Hegg said the same thing to me. Silence 22. I don't have a silencer.

I've never even thought about getting one. Rudy Veneer writes in, the best way to deal with mice is a cat. Once we got a cat, our mice disappeared. When we lived in a raccoon infiltrated neighborhood, we quickly learned to lock down our trash can lids. And at first we tried hooking the trash cans on a big hook so the little mass bandits couldn't knock them over. but they learn to pry the lids and just dive in and look for goodies. The lid locks stop them cold. Do not use bungee cords.

Do not use any kind of simple fastener. They can just tug on that lock. Do not use combination locks because I suspect the little buggers watch you and can work out the combination and memorize it. I understand where that's coming from. These raccoons are wily. Maybe I'm exaggerating on that last one a bit. I appreciate that, Rudy.

That is also a solution for the future, but doesn't get rid of the problem. Another suggestion from Bruce McLeod with a 22. I get it. Got to use the ground, I guess, is a backstop, and hope your neighbors don't think there's a war taking place next door. Cameron Nixon writes in, Dear Will, I'm currently sitting in a tree stand in Kansas listening to your podcast. Nice.

I too have drowned a raccoon, and I felt bad for it when it was grasping for air and looking at me. After that, I've trapped 12 raccoons in two weeks and released them at someone else's property that screwed me on a deal. I work for a maintenance company, and I put up boards in the dumpster so the trash pandas can't escape. I love hunting, but I don't like killing anything without good reason. I'm a U.S. Army veteran. Yeah. I mean, I guess if somebody's, you know, done you wrong on a deal, you can just let them out on their property. I've never had a raccoon problem, so don't they just come back?

Aren't they territorial? I mean, if you've got somebody far away, maybe, you know, if you want to drive across town, then maybe that's something that works. Ken Painter writes in, Will, first of all, I'm glad I can communicate via email. Yes, you can. Will cane podcast at fox.com. I don't like tweeting, says, kin. I lived in San Antonio for 31 years in the same house, and it was visited yearly by at least two raccoons a year. I would trap them and then take them to our parish property, which backed up to a large draw. It was at least 50 yards deep and at the bottom, by the way, parish. You're in San Antonio, Texas, right? That's Louisiana talk. Parishes. We have counties in Texas.

It was at least 50 yards deep, the draw, and at the bottom, 50 yards wide with the 40-degree sides. All of it's concreted. This property had a chain-link fence, which butted up to the draw, and at one place there happened to be a hole in the fence. I would take the cage to the hole and open the door, and the raccoons would be off and running across the draw before you could say bye. Every time I released them, they'd run up a telephone pole on the other side, and the dogs would go nuts. I have had to release them. Otherwise, they would have eaten this old marine to the bone. being trapped, ticked them off enough, and the pickup ride really had them mad.

If you get to missing the hill country, come on down. We can reconnect. Or I can reconnect you to the hill country, saying. I'd love to get back to the hill country. Mucho thanks for the podcast. Thank you, Ken. So you've got multiple suggestions of mini-gas chamber of a silence 22, of release them on somebody else's property.

And a few wrote in and said they agree with me. that drowning may not be the quickest, but it's a fairly humane way to get rid of it. Got a lot of responses. If everything we've ever had here on the Wilkane podcast, I think this was the most interactive. And as it, you know, inspires me to say, let's do like an ask me anything whenever you want. Wilkane podcast at Fox.com, I'll collect a bunch. You can ask me anything, okay? And I'll answer your questions, whatever you want.

Politics, current events, war, you know, family, whatever. Ask me anything, I'll answer your questions. Will Kane Podcast at Fox.com. Now I'm going to go forward all of your suggestions to my buddy and see what he comes up with on how to get rid of these raccoons. That's going to do it for me today. I always appreciate you. I'll see you next time.

Listen to ad free with a Fox News podcast plus subscription on Apple Podcast. And Amazon Prime members, you can listen to this show, ad free on the Amazon Music Act. Hey, I'm Trey Gowdy host of the Trey Gowdy podcast. I hope you will join me every Tuesday and Thursday. as we navigate life together and hopefully find ourselves a little bit better on the other side.

Listen and follow now at foxnewspodcast.com.