Blog
LatestArticlesVideos
Radio
LivePodcastSerialsStations
TV
Podcasts
The Glenn Beck ProgramThe Glenn Beck PodcastThe Beck Story
Fine Art
Real Estate
More
AboutCharityBooksSponsorsShopContact
SEARCH
Live Radio

©2024 MERCURY RADIO ARTS.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

TERMS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY

Live

Glenn's Show Prep

The GOP has targeted Texas conservative Louie Gohmert - here's how he is fighting back

March 11, 2015
Wilson

Writer

Republicans and Democrats both suffer from the disease of progressivism, and honest conservatives like Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) are left fighting for their lives. Gohmert has put together a PAC to support true conservatives who want to take a real stand on the issues that matter to Americans. Gohmert joined Glenn on radio today to explain what is happening behind closed doors in Washington and how he and others are standing up for the best interests of their constituents.

Below is a rush transcript of this segment:

GLENN: The GOP is now coming after Louie Gohmert and spending GOP money. If you've sent a check ever into the GOP, stop sending them money. They have now put a campaign together to campaign against Louie Gohmert. You know, one of those, call Louie Gohmert and tell them we don't want any of his French politics in Texas. Louie, why are they spending this money against you?

GOHMERT: Well, they were aboot to smote me and now they are smoting me. It's because they don't want people rising up and saying, no, I'm going to represent my district. I'm not going to just go along to get along. We're too far along down the wrong direction to just keep sliding down this path. So you got to go along or they're going to come after you and that's what's happening to --

GLENN: How much money -- how much money have they spent trying to get to you shut up? Do you have any idea?

GOHMERT: Well, I'd seen that they spent 400,000 in an additional buy to shed 12 of us. Actually, to slap us around. They're smoting us now. I love the earlier segment. Learned a lot about pronunciation.

GLENN: Right. And God and godless animals like Stu. We like you as sitting congressmen, one we respect on record. Is Stu a godless animal?

GOHMERT: You know, there has been something very interesting coming out of the vote last week. 167 Republicans voted against allowing the amnesty to go forward when we all including our speaker said we will not allow it. We're going to fight tooth and nail. And 167 stood up and said, no, this is not what we promised. And Glenn, it's been said nationally and in the media and especially the -- the left -- or the mainstream media, whatever, but that there is a very, very small group of radical right wingers in the -- in the Republican party that are trying to hijack the party. But if you look at that vote -- now, and I understand that there were a bunch of the 167 that told the speaker, look, I'm really, really sorry, I want to vote with you, but man, I've heard from my district and I cannot -- I voted for you. I'm paying for that. I cannot vote with you on this. And there were some of the 75 that voted with the speaker whose districts are very conservative. You look at that vote and it tells you, wait a minute. Way over two-thirds are representing very conservative -- what I could call mainstream districts and so maybe it's not the right wings that -- right wing there's have hijacked the party. Maybe it's people on the other end of the spectrum that have hijacked a very conservative country and Republican party.

GLENN: No, it's the progressive Republicans and quite honestly, those kinds of -- I think there's a lot of people that get swayed. They are not necessarily progressive. I think the Jeb Bushes. World, I think there's enough to go around, the Lindsey Grahams, the John McCains that are progressive. However, there's also a number of them that get there and they listen to these political consultants. And these political consultants say look, you can't, because you're going to hurt the party in X-number of years and you've got to do this and you've got to do that. And they listen to those boobs that give us a Mitt Romney or a John McCain every single time.

GOHMERT: Yeah. And actually, that was pretty evident the morning of the vote for speaker. I was talking at two different times to people who had said to their constituents if you elect me, I will not vote for Boehner for Speaker and they're wonderful guys and they said, look, I'm really struggling what to do. I'm praying for wisdom on what to do. And I respect that, but that's not -- at midnight I'm sitting at my desk in my office and I'm thinking, I wonder what that sounded like. Oh, god, should I honest and keep my promises or should I a scumbag that breaks my promise to the first vote? I just need a sign. Should I honest or not? I don't know. I mean, how do you pray that prayer?

GLENN: I don't know. You'd have to ask Stu.

(laughing).

GLENN: So --

GOHMERT: You got to believe in God, though, before you pray.

GLENN: Yeah, I know, I know. So Louie, you've started a -- you started a --

GOHMERT: A PAC.

GLENN: What is it? Tell me about it.

GOHMERT: Well, it's GOHconservative.com. And that way you don't have to worry if it's Gormert or Gohmert. It's GOHconservative.com. And that's a PAC that helps Conservatives who are willing to stand up for what we promise we would do when we got elected. It's pretty basic. But we need people's help. We've got the establishment after us. They're trying to teach us a lesson and send the message to others, look, you can't stand up to leadership in the Republican party because they will smote you and strike you down. You better get on board. And there are people who see that and say, gee, I'm in a tough district. I can't afford to get the leadership after me. So this just lets people you know, you can get help if you do stand up for what your district wants you to do. There's help. So I can use public help.

GLENN: Here's what I would like to ask.

(overlapping speakers).

GLENN: Here's what I would like to ask the audience to do. You think of GOP Conservatives, that's grand old party conservative. They put the party first. GOH, just remember good old honesty conservative. Okay?

GOHMERT: I love that.

GLENN: Just good old honesty conservative. This is what we need, some people who are honest. Now, this is a PAC that will help the Conservatives that are actually standing and help them fight the GOP. I've said this before. Defund the GOP. Stop writing checks to the GOP. Stop it. The party has so lost its soul, that it really thinks that Jeb Bush and giving the president all the rope to hang us, not him -- all the rope to hang us with amnesty and with -- with ObamaCare and everything else. They think that's a good idea. I'm done playing the game. Don't write another check to the GOP. And if you want to help the guys who are Republican to help them stand and fight, just remember, good old honesty conservative. GOHconservative.com -- is it org?

GOHMERT: Com.

GLENN: Dotcom.

GOHMERT: Yep. I couldn't have set it beard. -- said it better. Holy cow, I couldn't have said it that good. But thanks, Glenn. There are Republicans across the country, they're the good guys. And they're just so frustrated that they keep sending people to Washington and they can't believe that they get there and are not doing what they promised. And it's --

GLENN: So what's going to happen with amnesty? Louie?

GOHMERT: Well, it's -- it's unfortunate, but the members -- the Republican members that voted for this are putting all their stock in one United States district judge in the southern district, Andrew Hanen. He was one of the tops in his law class. He's a brilliant guy. Was with one of the best firms in Houston. And I just -- just a terrific guy. You want to read some good reading, read his 123-page opinion. But they're putting all their stock in the Judge Hanen. A law school classmate, by the way. He's doing his job when we failed to do ours. We had the power to stop this and several years ago a Supreme Court justice just said off the cuff, you know, you guys are not going to do your job you know, in keeping the branches in line, don't come running, crying to us. You know, you've got the power to do something. And we should.

GLENN: Um, the -- DHS. That was a home run. Can you tell us what happened at the last minutes with the DHS thing?

GOHMERT: With it passing?

GLENN: Yeah, I mean, no, no, no, wait, no, no. They had it. And then the -- the Republicans decide, yeah, we're not going -- we're not going to actually hold you to that. And then John Boehner comes back and does another one, which makes the Republican -- I think makes the Republicans look bad. What happened at the last minute, Louie?

GOHMERT: Well, we did have it. We were standing --

GLENN: You were winning.

GOHMERT: But, you know, the thing is, this was -- this was all cast back in actually September when the Republican leadership said, you know what, let's just put this off until December 11th. And many of us in September, were going, no, not until December 11th because we may win the Senate. Let's put it off to January. The end of January. And we could -- then we can get it strained it out -- straightened it on it. And some of us were going, no, you do it until December 11th and we know where this is going. So December 11th comes and we said okay, we're going to fund everything from the Department of Homeland Security. And many of us were going, no, you don't take hostage what you care about. You take hostage who the other people don't -- don't want you to take hostage, like the EPA, like the czars, like golf outings. You know, you go after the things that they care about. We're the ones that care more -- most about home blend security. So in other words -- Homeland Security. So in other words, people say we took a hostage that the other side wanted us to shoot. Like the Danny Devito movie where they kidnap his wife Bette Midler and they called and said you have to pay the ransom. No, kill her, go ahead. Let's go ahead and shoot her. I don't care.

GLENN: That's right.

GOHMERT: That's what we did here. We took the wrong hostage. We took the thing we care body and the president called the bluff and we knew going back to September, this is how we -- we were afraid it would play out. But then in November our leaders were saying we're going to fight tooth and nail. We're not going to give in. And as recent as like four days before the Speaker of the House said, we are not gonna let the Senate jam us and got this huge rousing ovation. And then just a matter of a few days later, well, we don't have any choice. We're going to have to let them jam us and take it.

GLENN: Gees.

GOHMERT: Is really is disheartening when you watch that play out.

GLENN: Last question, net neutrality.

GOHMERT: Oh, boy.

GLENN: I know.

GOHMERT: If there was one shining spot in the country freedom, it was in the Internet. And yes, I understand that the people that seem to have made the most money innovating on the Internet were giving to the democrats. I don't care. It's freedom. So obviously the government -- some in the government couldn't stand the thought of an area it didn't control, so it had to come after that.

GLENN: Are you going to be able to yank that back.?

GOHMERT: We have to stop that.

GLENN: You can you yank that back at all?

GOHMERT: Yes, we can, but it will take people standing up to do it, and if you're afraid of standing up, yeah, we're not going to be able to pull that off. But I still believe we can. You know, you and I both still have that hope that springs eternal and we're not gonna give up.

GLENN: Louie, I appreciate talking to you and I just love you and I think you're really truly one of the good guys and you really have a spine. You know, you were a judge and a good one. And you have gone in and done all of the hard work and I just love you and I --

GOHMERT: I love you too, Glenn, and it means so much but someone say I'm a porcupine Christian. That's someone that's got a lot of good points but you don't want to get close to him. But I'm working on it.

GLENN: I'm proud to stand shoulder to shoulder and as close as I can to you as a porcupine because I think you're one of the good guys.

GOHMERT: Thanks so much.

Americans expose Supreme Court’s flag ruling as a failed relic

Anna Moneymaker / Staff | Getty Images

In a nation where the Stars and Stripes symbolize the blood-soaked sacrifices of our heroes, President Trump's executive order to crack down on flag desecration amid violent protests has ignited fierce debate. But in a recent poll, Glenn asked the tough question: Can Trump protect the Flag without TRAMPLING free speech? Glenn asked, and you answered—thousands weighed in on this pressing clash between free speech and sacred symbols.

The results paint a picture of resounding distrust toward institutional leniency. A staggering 85% of respondents support banning the burning of American flags when it incites violence or disturbs the peace, a bold rejection of the chaos we've seen from George Floyd riots to pro-Palestinian torchings. Meanwhile, 90% insist that protections for burning other flags—like Pride or foreign banners—should not be treated the same as Old Glory under the First Amendment, exposing the hypocrisy in equating our nation's emblem with fleeting symbols. And 82% believe the Supreme Court's Texas v. Johnson ruling, shielding flag burning as "symbolic speech," should not stand without revision—can the official story survive such resounding doubt from everyday Americans weary of government inaction?

Your verdict sends a thunderous message: In this divided era, the flag demands defense against those who exploit freedoms to sow disorder, without trampling the liberties it represents. It's a catastrophic failure of the establishment to ignore this groundswell.

Want to make your voice heard? Check out more polls HERE.

Labor Day began as a political payoff to Socialist agitators

JOSEPH PREZIOSO / Contributor | Getty Images

During your time off this holiday, remember the man who started it: Peter J. McGuire, a racist Marxist who co-founded America’s first socialist party.

Labor Day didn’t begin as a noble tribute to American workers. It began as a negotiation with ideological terrorists.

In the late 1800s, factory and mine conditions were brutal. Workers endured 12-to-15-hour days, often seven days a week, in filthy, dangerous environments. Wages were low, injuries went uncompensated, and benefits didn’t exist. Out of desperation, Americans turned to labor unions. Basic protections had to be fought for because none were guaranteed.

Labor Day wasn’t born out of gratitude. It was a political payoff to Marxist radicals who set trains ablaze and threatened national stability.

That era marked a seismic shift — much like today. The Industrial Revolution, like our current digital and political upheaval, left millions behind. And wherever people get left behind, Marxists see an opening.

A revolutionary wedge

This was Marxism’s moment.

Economic suffering created fertile ground for revolutionary agitation. Marxists, socialists, and anarchists stepped in to stoke class resentment. Their goal was to turn the downtrodden into a revolutionary class, tear down the existing system, and redistribute wealth by force.

Among the most influential agitators was Peter J. McGuire, a devout Irish Marxist from New York. In 1874, he co-founded the Social Democratic Workingmens Party of North America, the first Marxist political party in the United States. He was also a vice president of the American Federation of Labor, which would become the most powerful union in America.

McGuire’s mission wasn’t hidden. He wanted to transform the U.S. into a socialist nation through labor unions.

That mission soon found a useful symbol.

In the 1880s, labor leaders in Toronto invited McGuire to attend their annual labor festival. Inspired, he returned to New York and launched a similar parade on Sept. 5 — chosen because it fell halfway between Independence Day and Thanksgiving.

The first parade drew over 30,000 marchers who skipped work to hear speeches about eight-hour workdays and the alleged promise of Marxism. The parade caught on across the country.

Negotiating with radicals

By 1894, Labor Day had been adopted by 30 states. But the federal government had yet to make it a national holiday. A major strike changed everything.

In Pullman, Illinois, home of the Pullman railroad car company, tensions exploded. The economy tanked. George Pullman laid off hundreds of workers and slashed wages for those who remained — yet refused to lower the rent on company-owned homes.

That injustice opened the door for Marxist agitators to mobilize.

Sympathetic railroad workers joined the strike. Riots broke out. Hundreds of railcars were torched. Mail service was disrupted. The nation’s rail system ground to a halt.

President Grover Cleveland — under pressure in a midterm election year — panicked. He sent 12,000 federal troops to Chicago. Two strikers were killed in the resulting clashes.

With the crisis spiraling and Democrats desperate to avoid political fallout, Cleveland struck a deal. Within six days of breaking the strike, Congress rushed through legislation making Labor Day a federal holiday.

It was the first of many concessions Democrats would make to organized labor in exchange for political power.

What we really celebrated

Labor Day wasn’t born out of gratitude. It was a political payoff to Marxist radicals who set trains ablaze and threatened national stability.

Kean Collection / Staff | Getty Images

What we celebrated was a Canadian idea, brought to America by the founder of the American Socialist Party, endorsed by racially exclusionary unions, and made law by a president and Congress eager to save face.

It was the first of many bones thrown by the Democratic Party to union power brokers. And it marked the beginning of a long, costly compromise with ideologues who wanted to dismantle the American way of life — from the inside out.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Durham annex EXPOSES Soros, Pentagon ties to Deep State machine

ullstein bild Dtl. / Contributor | Getty Images

The Durham annex and ODNI report documents expose a vast network of funders and fixers — from Soros’ Open Society Foundations to the Pentagon.

In a column earlier this month, I argued the deep state is no longer deniable, thanks to Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard. I outlined the structural design of the deep state as revealed by two recent declassifications: Gabbard’s ODNI report and the Durham annex released by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa).

These documents expose a transnational apparatus of intelligence agencies, media platforms, think tanks, and NGOs operating as a parallel government.

The deep state is funded by elite donors, shielded by bureaucracies, and perpetuated by operatives who drift between public office and private influence without accountability.

But institutions are only part of the story. This web of influence is made possible by people — and by money. This follow-up to the first piece traces the key operatives and financial networks fueling the deep state’s most consequential manipulations, including the Trump-Russia collusion hoax.

Architects and operatives

At the top of the intelligence pyramid sits John Brennan, President Obama’s CIA director and one of the principal architects of the manipulated 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment. James Clapper, who served as director of national intelligence, signed off on that same ICA and later joined 50 other former officials in concluding the Hunter Biden laptop had “all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation” ahead of the 2020 election. The timing, once again, served a political objective.

James Comey, then FBI director, presided over Crossfire Hurricane. According to the Durham annex, he also allowed the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s private email server to collapse after it became entangled with “sensitive intelligence” revealing her plan to tie President Donald Trump to Russia.

That plan, as documented in the annex, originated with Hillary Clinton herself and was personally pushed by President Obama. Her campaign, through law firm Perkins Coie, hired Fusion GPS, which commissioned the now-debunked Steele dossier — a document used to justify surveillance warrants on Trump associates.

Several individuals orbiting the Clinton operation have remained influential. Jake Sullivan, who served as President Biden’s national security adviser, was a foreign policy aide to Clinton during her 2016 campaign. He was named in 2021 as a figure involved in circulating the collusion narrative, and his presence in successive Democratic administrations suggests institutional continuity.

Andrew McCabe, then the FBI’s deputy director, approved the use of FISA warrants derived from unverified sources. His connection to the internal “insurance policy” discussion — described in a 2016 text by FBI official Peter Strzok to colleague Lisa Page — underscores the Bureau’s political posture during that election cycle.

The list of political enablers is long but revealing:

Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), who, as a former representative from California, chaired the House Intelligence Committee at the time and publicly promoted the collusion narrative while having access to intelligence that contradicted it.

Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif) and Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), both members of the “Gang of Eight” with oversight of intelligence operations, advanced the same narrative despite receiving classified briefings.

Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.), ranking member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, exchanged encrypted text messages with a Russian lobbyist in efforts to speak with Christopher Steele.

These were not passive recipients of flawed intelligence. They were participants in its amplification.

The funding networks behind the machine

The deep state’s operations are not possible without financing — much of it indirect, routed through a nexus of private foundations, quasi-governmental entities, and federal agencies.

George Soros’ Open Society Foundations appear throughout the Durham annex. In one instance, Open Society Foundations documents were intercepted by foreign intelligence and used to track coordination between NGOs and the Clinton campaign’s anti-Trump strategy.

This system was not designed for transparency but for control.

Soros has also been a principal funder of the Center for American Progress Action Fund, which ran a project during the Trump administration called the Moscow Project, dedicated to promoting the Russia collusion narrative.

The Tides Foundation and Arabella Advisors both specialize in “dark money” donor-advised funds that obscure the source and destination of political funding. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation was the biggest donor to the Arabella Advisors by far, which routed $127 million through Arabella’s network in 2020 alone and nearly $500 million in total.

The MacArthur Foundation and Rockefeller Foundation also financed many of the think tanks named in the Durham annex, including the Council on Foreign Relations.

Federal funding pipelines

Parallel to the private networks are government-funded influence operations, often justified under the guise of “democracy promotion” or counter-disinformation initiatives.

USAID directed $270 million to Soros-affiliated organizations for overseas “democracy” programs, a significant portion of which has reverberated back into domestic influence campaigns.

The State Department funds the National Endowment for Democracy, a quasi-governmental organization with a $315 million annual budget and ties to narrative engineering projects.

The Department of Homeland Security underwrote entities involved in online censorship programs targeting American citizens.

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

The Pentagon, from 2020 to 2024, awarded over $2.4 trillion to private contractors — many with domestic intelligence capabilities. It also directed $1.4 billion to select think tanks since 2019.

According to public records compiled by DataRepublican, these tax-funded flows often support the very actors shaping U.S. political discourse and global perception campaigns.

Not just domestic — but global

What these disclosures confirm is that the deep state is not a theory. It is a documented structure — funded by elite donors, shielded by bureaucracies, and perpetuated by operatives who drift between public office and private influence without accountability.

This system was not designed for transparency but for control. It launders narratives, neutralizes opposition, and overrides democratic will by leveraging the very institutions meant to protect it.

With the Durham annex and the ODNI report, we now see the network's architecture and its actors — names, agencies, funding trails — all laid bare. What remains is the task of dismantling it before its next iteration takes shape.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

The truth behind ‘defense’: How America was rebranded for war

PAUL J. RICHARDS / Staff | Getty Images

Donald Trump emphasizes peace through strength, reminding the world that the United States is willing to fight to win. That’s beyond ‘defense.’

President Donald Trump made headlines this week by signaling a rebrand of the Defense Department — restoring its original name, the Department of War.

At first, I was skeptical. “Defense” suggests restraint, a principle I consider vital to U.S. foreign policy. “War” suggests aggression. But for the first 158 years of the republic, that was the honest name: the Department of War.

A Department of War recognizes the truth: The military exists to fight and, if necessary, to win decisively.

The founders never intended a permanent standing army. When conflict came — the Revolution, the War of 1812, the trenches of France, the beaches of Normandy — the nation called men to arms, fought, and then sent them home. Each campaign was temporary, targeted, and necessary.

From ‘war’ to ‘military-industrial complex’

Everything changed in 1947. President Harry Truman — facing the new reality of nuclear weapons, global tension, and two world wars within 20 years — established a full-time military and rebranded the Department of War as the Department of Defense. Americans resisted; we had never wanted a permanent army. But Truman convinced the country it was necessary.

Was the name change an early form of political correctness? A way to soften America’s image as a global aggressor? Or was it simply practical? Regardless, the move created a permanent, professional military. But it also set the stage for something Truman’s successor, President Dwight “Ike” Eisenhower, famously warned about: the military-industrial complex.

Ike, the five-star general who commanded Allied forces in World War II and stormed Normandy, delivered a harrowing warning during his farewell address: The military-industrial complex would grow powerful. Left unchecked, it could influence policy and push the nation toward unnecessary wars.

And that’s exactly what happened. The Department of Defense, with its full-time and permanent army, began spending like there was no tomorrow. Weapons were developed, deployed, and sometimes used simply to justify their existence.

Peace through strength

When Donald Trump said this week, “I don’t want to be defense only. We want defense, but we want offense too,” some people freaked out. They called him a warmonger. He isn’t. Trump is channeling a principle older than him: peace through strength. Ronald Reagan preached it; Trump is taking it a step further.

Just this week, Trump also suggested limiting nuclear missiles — hardly the considerations of a warmonger — echoing Reagan, who wanted to remove missiles from silos while keeping them deployable on planes.

The seemingly contradictory move of Trump calling for a Department of War sends a clear message: He wants Americans to recognize that our military exists not just for defense, but to project power when necessary.

Trump has pointed to something critically important: The best way to prevent war is to have a leader who knows exactly who he is and what he will do. Trump signals strength, deterrence, and resolve. You want to negotiate? Great. You don’t? Then we’ll finish the fight decisively.

That’s why the world listens to us. That’s why nations come to the table — not because Trump is reckless, but because he means what he says and says what he means. Peace under weakness invites aggression. Peace under strength commands respect.

Trump is the most anti-war president we’ve had since Jimmy Carter. But unlike Carter, Trump isn’t weak. Carter’s indecision emboldened enemies and made the world less safe. Trump’s strength makes the country stronger. He believes in peace as much as any president. But he knows peace requires readiness for war.

Names matter

When we think of “defense,” we imagine cybersecurity, spy programs, and missile shields. But when we think of “war,” we recall its harsh reality: death, destruction, and national survival. Trump is reminding us what the Department of Defense is really for: war. Not nation-building, not diplomacy disguised as military action, not endless training missions. War — full stop.

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

Names matter. Words matter. They shape identity and character. A Department of Defense implies passivity, a posture of reaction. A Department of War recognizes the truth: The military exists to fight and, if necessary, to win decisively.

So yes, I’ve changed my mind. I’m for the rebranding to the Department of War. It shows strength to the world. It reminds Americans, internally and externally, of the reality we face. The Department of Defense can no longer be a euphemism. Our military exists for war — not without deterrence, but not without strength either. And we need to stop deluding ourselves.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.