VIDEO: Rand Paul Urges US To Stay Hands-Off Over Gaza Attack

Rand Paul does a good job here.  Don't run off half-cocked and promise to nuke Iran when, though it is assumed, it has yet to be proven.  And even if it is proven, that's still no reason to bomb a country to smithereens.  Look at what the U.S. did to Iraq.  And then when the U.S. left Afghanistan, it left in disaster.  Good on Rand Paul to have some composure and reflection on the conflict.  

Thank you to ZeroHedge.

Are the accusations of criminal intent beginning to set fire under Fauci?

BREAKING: The fire department is reportedly on scene at Rand Paul’s (R-KY) office in Bowling Green, Kentucky after it caught fire overnight. (story is still developing) pic.twitter.com/UVI83A6Haw

— TexasLindsay™ (@TexasLindsay_) July 21, 2023

That fire at Rand Paul's offices in Bowling Green, Kentucky couldn't have anything to do with the fact that the sitting senator is referring Dr. Fauci to the [do nothing or Do Little] DOJ and Merrick Garland, that bastion of righting wrongs, right?  I mean the only suspicious incendiary devices they could possibly find at Dr. Paul's office is probably pages or files of documented truth on record indicting Tony Fauci.  Why does it feel like Rand Paul of the 2020s is the Robert F. Kennedy of the 1960s hunting the mob who ran rackets back then?

I’ve referred Anthony Fauci to the DOJ (again) for lying to Congress when he denied the NIH was funding of gain-of-function research in Wuhan. https://t.co/LuPDleRhYW

— Rand Paul (@RandPaul) July 18, 2023

2009. 

In 2003 Gaddafi agreed to dismantle Libya's WMDs

In 09’ Hillary Clinton welcomed Gaddafi's son, Mutassim, to USDS and said:
"We deeply value the relationship between US and Libya". Poo

2 years later she laughed upon hearing he & his dad’s lyn*ching pic.twitter.com/GRaMmdG68a… https://t.co/vkIpLvtmZi

— Erin Elizabeth Health Nut News 🙌 (@unhealthytruth) March 20, 2023

2009, Obama takes office with his Shovel Ready Funds.  

2010s, Arab Spring.  

2011, "We Came, We Saw, He Died."

2012, Benghazi. 

2013, Senate Hearings on Benghazi with Rand Paul grilling Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, who served in that role from 2009-2013.

I thought NATO was created to protect European countries from Soviet or Russian invasion?  If so, why is the U.S. using NATO to invade Libya at the instigation of France?  

https://original.antiwar.com/eland/2015/07/20/lessons-from-obamas-war-in-libya/

On 19 March 2011, a multi-state NATO-led coalition began a military intervention in Libya, to implement United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973, in response to events during the First Libyan Civil War. With ten votes in favor and five abstentions, the UN Security Council's intent was to have "an immediate ceasefire in Libya, including an end to the current attacks against civilians, which it said might constitute 'crimes against humanity' ... [imposing] a ban on all flights in the country's airspace — a no-fly zone — and tightened sanctions on the Muammar Gaddafi regime and its supporters."^[23]

10 GOP Senators Vote To Oppose Libya Intervention.  Who were these ten?  They were all Republicans.

1,800 [NIH] scientists had taken $193 million dollars in royalties

3:42  I think all of America should be appalled that America’s doctor, the leading expert on COVID and public health doesn’t want to divulge information, doesn't want to divulge his communications with Big Tech. But it goes even beyond that. The last time I had him in a hearing, we told him that through FOI that 193 NIH scientists . . . no, it was 1,800 scientists had taken $193 million dollars in royalties. And his response was, “Not that I’ll look into it and reveal it,” but his response was “By law, we don’t have to tell you which companies gave us how many royalties and to which scientists.” So, this is a guy whose modus operandi is to cover up and not allow any sunshine on any of his activities. That should be a tip off as to his motives.”

It sure does. And we’re going to get a good look at those emails and if he doesn’t comply, he has to pay a price, and this is a court order. Now, this is new, the FBI has secretly been pressuring Americans to sign away their constitutional right to buy and own firearms? This is according to internal documents that the Daily Caller News Foundation got. The FBI was showing up to people’s homes with national instant criminal background checks and forcing people to sign away their second Amendment, saying “You know, list yourself as a danger to yourself or others and say that they don’t have the capacity to manage your lives, put your name down on this form and you’re never gonna be able to buy a gun again. Now this happened at least 15 times between 2016 and 2019. The FBI says they’re not doing this anymore. I don’t know if I believe them, do you?

5:48 There’s a certain irony to say to someone that you have to be mentally competent to sign this statement that says, “you’re not mentally competent to own a gun.” So, there is that. There might be a quandary if you get into a court of law how someone is mentally incompetent to own a gun could be competent to sign away their gun rights. But the whole problem we have right now is that there’s a burden upon the FBI to prove to the American public that they’re not partisan. This goes back to 2016 when they used a foreign intelligence warrant to go after Donald Trump and his campaign, a foreign intelligence warrant which should be used on foreigners and a secret court was used to go after a major presidential candidate. Now we have two weeks ago, or in the last week, an FBI agent has been let go because he was hiding evidence that Hunter Biden’s laptop was legitimate. So, I think there’s a burden on the FBI, whether it’s this, whether it’s guns, or anything else to prove to us that they’re not acting in a political way. And I’ve had this conversation with Christopher Wray before. He doesn’t seem to be troubled at all by using a foreign intelligence warrant on an American. That’s why he just doesn’t simply get it.

Rand Paul should never run for president again. He's much more valuable in the senate.

"You won't admit that it's dangerous, and for that lack of judgment I think it's time that you resign."

The NIH did fund gain-of-function in Wuhan.  Even the Chinese authors in their paper admit that viruses not found in nature were created, and yes, they gained in infectivity.  Your persistent denials are not just a stain on your reputation but are a clear and present danger to the country and to the world.  As Professor Kevin Esvelt of MIT has written, gain-of-function research looks like a gamble that civilization can't afford to risk.  And yet here you are again steadfast in your denials.  Why does it matter?  Because gain-of-function research with laboratory-created viruses not found in nature could cause a pandemic even worse the next time.  We're suffering today from one that has a mortality of approximately one percent that are experimenting with viruses that have mortalities that have approximately 15 and 50%.  Yes, our civilization could be at risk from one of these viruses.  Experiments that combine unknown viruses with known pandemic-causing viruses are incredibly risky.  Experiments that combine unknown viruses with coronaviruses that have as much as 50% mortality could endanger civilization as we know it.  And here you sit, unwilling to accept any responsibility for the current pandemic and unwilling to take any steps to prevent gain-of-function research from possibly unleashing an even more deadly virus.  You mislead the public by saying that the published viruses could not be COVID.  Well, exactly no one is alleging that.  No one is alleging that the published viruses by the Chinese are COVID.  What we are saying is that this was risky type of research, gain-of-function research, that it was risky to share this with the Chinese, and that COVID may have been created from a not-yet revealed virus.  We don't anticipate that the Chinese are going to reveal the virus if it came from their lab.  You know that but you continue to mislead.  You continue to support NIH money going to Wuhan.  You continue to say that you trust the Chinese scientists.  You appear to have learned nothing from this pandemic.  Will you today, finally, take some responsibility for funding gain-of-function research in Wuhan? 

FAUCI, 2:52  Senator, with all due respect, I disagree with so many things that you've said.  First of all, gain-of-function is a very nebulous term.  We have spent, not us but outside bodies, a considerable amount of effort to give a more precise definition to the type of research that is of concern that might lead to a dangerous situation.  You are aware of that.  That is called P3CO

PAUL, 3:27  We're aware that you've deleted "gain-of-function" from the NIH website.  

FAUCI, 3:30  Well, I can get back to that if we have time.  But let's get back to the operating framework and guide[rails] of which we operate under.  [wow, Fauci is carefully sparsing out his words.]  And you have ignored them.  The guidelines are very, very clear.  That you have to be dealing with a pathogen that has shown, and very likely, to be highly transmissible in an uncontrollable way in humans and to have a high degree of morbidity and mortality and that you do experiments to enhance that. Hence the word, EPPP, Enhanced Potential Pandemic Pathogens.

PAUL, 4:08  So when EcoHealth Alliance took the virus SHC-014 and combined it with WIV1 caused a recombinant virus, that doesn't exist in nature, and it made mice sicker, mice that had humanized cells, you're saying that that's not gain-of-function research? 

FAUCI, 4:25  According to the framework and guidelines, 

PAUL, 4:27  So what you're doing is defining away gain-of-function.  You're simply saying it doesn't exist because you changed the definition on the NIH website.  This is terrible, and you're completely trying to escape the idea that we should do something about trying to prevent a pandemic from leaking from a lab.  There's a preponderance of evidence now that points to this coming from the lab, and what you've done is change the definition on your website to try to cover your ass basically.  That's what you've done--you've changed the website to try to change the definition that doesn't include the risky research that is going on.  Until you admit that it's risky, we're not going to get anywhere.  You have to admit that this was risky.  The NIH has now rebuked them.  Your own agency has rebuked them.  But the thing is that you're still unwilling to admit that they gained in function when they say "they became sicker," They gained in lethality.  That's a new virus.  That's not gain-of-function?  

FAUCI, 5:20  According to the definition that is currently operable . . . you know, Senator, let's make it clear for the people who are listening.  The current definition was done over a two-to-three-year period by outside bodies, including NSABB, two conferences by the National Academy of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine [National Academies] on December 2014 to March 2016, we commissioned external risk-benefit assessment.  And then on January of 2017, the Office of Science and Technology of the White House issued the current policy

PAUL, 6:06  The definition appeared on the same day that the NIH said that, yes, there was a gain-of-function in Wuhan, the same day the definition appeared, the new definition to try to define away what's going on in Wuhan.  Until you accept it, until you accept responsibility we're not going to get anywhere close to try and prevent another lab leak of this dangerous sort of experiment.  You won't admit that it's dangerous, and for that lack of judgment I think it's time that you resign.  

Dracula negotiating the definition of what bite means.

— Mike Walgenbach (@mwalgen44) November 4, 2021

 

Rand Paul should never run for president again. He's much more valuable in the senate.

— Moved to Florida (@not_retired) November 4, 2021

“It’s time for us to resist, they can’t arrest all of us!”

WOW Rand Paul “it’s time for us to resist, they can’t arrest all of us!” pic.twitter.com/F735QgTJYm

— Luke Rudkowski (@Lukewearechange) October 12, 2021

ICYMI: RAND PAUL CHALLENGES THE ARROGANCE OF HHS SECRETARY, XAVIER BECERRA

ICYMI: @RandPaul calls out the HHS Secretary: :This is an arrogance...That is unseemly and un-American." pic.twitter.com/UfSkvI1MPJ

— MRCTV (@mrctv) October 3, 2021

[Dr.] Rand Paul: Remove Fauci from Position of Authority

Fauci should be removed from any position of authority. https://t.co/e3KOdhD9BY

— Senator Rand Paul (@RandPaul) June 26, 2021

Rand is excellent on this planned pandemic.  

The numbers of those being infected and those dying are going down.  There's no reason to be hysterical, force this on children and mandate it for school because children get almost no symptoms; they rarely die from it.  It's like one in a million.  To Dr. Fauci and other elitists, submission is more important than relying on science.  They're not obeying the science, they're obeying this mandate that everybody be part of the hive, that everybody is part of the collective and that we're not going to look at your healthcare individually.  

When the conversation turned to the topic of Afghan leader, Ashraf Ghani's visit to the U. S., Rand is even better when he says,

We can't be their founding fathers. 

Rand keeps getting better.  

"a woman who got the Spanish Flu still showed immunity 90 years later."

Thanks to Don Boudreaux.  

[00:21] Shane Crotty, Ph.D., Virologist at La Jolla Institute for Immunology in La Jolla, CA concludes from his experiments that the amount of immune memory gained from natural infection would likely prevent the vast majority of people from getting hospitalized, disease, severe disease for many years.  In this study, which was published in Science, Dr. Crotty, showed that antibody levels stayed relatively constant with only modest declines within 6 to 8 months, Dr. Crotty reported notably that Memory B cells, specific for the spike protein, or RBD, were detected in almost all COVID-19 cases with no apparent half-life with 5 to 8 months after infection.  In other words, Dr. Crotty found significant evidence of long-term immunity after COVID infection.  Furthermore, Dr. Crotty noted that B-cell memory to some other infections has observed for sixty-plus years after smallpox vaccination or even 90 years with natural infection with influenza.  That was a woman who got the Spanish Flu and still showed immunity 90 years later.  So, rather than being pessimistic toward people gaining immunity after they’ve had COVID or had a vaccine, studies argue for significant optimism.  In fact, there have been no scientific studies arguing or proving that infection with COVID does not create immunity.  There've been no studies of significant numbers of re-infections of the 30 million Americans who've had COVID.  Only a handful of infections have been discovered.  In fact, the New York Times reported last fall that more than 38 million at the time worldwide had been infected with the Coronavirus and, as of that date, fewer than 5 of these cases had been confirmed by scientists to be reinfection.  Scientists interviewed for the article concluded, "In most cases, a second bout with the virus produced milder symptoms or none at all."  Given that no scientific studies have shown significant numbers of reinfection or patients previously infected or previously vaccinated, what specific studies do you cite to argue that the public should be wearing masks well into 2022? [2:27]

Find more on Shane Crotty, Ph.D., here.

If you want a little insight into Fauci's credibility, give a listen to what Kary Mullis, the inventor of the PCR test, said about Anthony Fauci.  

CoViD has pushed highly intelligent individuals to HAVE TO STUDY about virology & epidemiology, so that previous frauds in public health could be exposed. Kary Mullis, Peter Duesberg, Judy Mikovits and others were left orphaned when they tried to warn us, but it wasn't in vain. https://t.co/jqZus3149U

— Wake Up From COVID (@wakeupfromcovid) March 13, 2021