Rep. Gohmert drills FBI Director over incompetence in Boston Marathon investigation

A House Judiciary Committee hearing got a little heated on Thursday when Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) battled FBI Director Robert Mueller over the efficiency of the FBI's investigation into the Boston Marathon bombers prior to the April 15th attack. Somehow, Mueller claims he was unaware that the mosque the Tsarnaev brothers attended, the Islamic Society of Boston, was founded by convicted supporter of terrorism Abdurahman Alamoudi.

Given the amount of data we now know the federal government has at its fingertips, how incompetent does one have to be to miss this type of detail?

Glenn explained that the reason the exchange began was because the FBI purged all of the information on all of the mosques that had been collected.

"We had collected a lot of data, because remember, data is important, right? We have to know who's in our country.  We have to listen to all of our phone calls, we have to do everything, because we have to know who's talking to who, but the Islamic counsels got together and they decided they wanted some information purged from the FBI records," Glenn explained. "Now, we don't know what has been purged and we don't even know who's requesting the purging. We just know that things have been blacked out, and Louie is saying to him, I want you to tell me why we can't tell the American people the names of the people that are requesting the purge of these documents, and you listen to them.  Why can't we tell the American people who these people are?  They are supposed public servants.  Shouldn't the American people know who's serving them to help them be more safe?"

Watch the exchange here:

Gohmert: "I want to go back to Boston.  You said things like how -- the FBI did an excellent job, a thorough job, don't know what else we could have done and according to the rugs, there's a great deal more that could have been done and when we find out about this sensitive operations review committee, and as this article points out, if it's true, it says that we don't know who the chairman and members are, sensitive operations review uh committee, who the staff -- that's kept secret.  The FBI never canvassed Boston mosques until four days after the April 15th attacks.  If the Russians tell you that someone has been radicalized and you go check and see the mosques that they went to, then you get the articles of incorporation, as I have, for the group that created the Boston mosque where these Tsarnaevs attended and you find the name al-Amoudi, which you remember, because this man who was so helpful to the Clinton Administration with so many big things, he gets arrested at Dulles Airport by the FBI, and he's now doing over 20 years for supporting terrorism.  This is the guy that started the mosque where your Tsarnaevs were attending, and you didn't even bother to check about the mosque.  And then when you had the picture, why didn't anyone go to the mosque and say who are these guys? Why was that not done, since such a thorough job was done?"

Mueller: "Your facts are not all-together…"

Gohmert: "I point out specifically — point out specifically, sir, if you are going to call me a liar, you need to point out specifically where any facts are wrong.

Mueller: "We went to the mosque."

Gohmert: "Prior to Boston?"

Mueller: "Prior to Boston.  We were talking to Imams several months beforehand as part of our outreach efforts."

"Outreach efforts?" Really?

"So in other words, we went to that mosque, we went to that mosque as part of our outreach.  We are reaching out to them, saying hey, how can we be partners," Glenn responded. "That's insane."

Gohmert: "Were you aware those mosques were started by Abdurahman Alamoudi?"

Mueller: "I answered the question, sir."

Gohmert: "You didn't answer the question, were you award they were started by al-Amoudi?"

"He wasn't everybody aware of it.  These are the people collecting all the information on you to keep you safe. They are purging all of the information on who the radical Islamists are.  They are purging it.  Why?  Because our government is on the wrong side. They have deemed that you are the enemy and radical Islam is fine, as long as it's Muslim brotherhood.  It is a very, very dangerous thing we are involved in now and they are taking away your keys to the locks, they are putting around your children's necks and wrists and arms and brain," Glenn added.

Rep. Louis Gohmert joined Glenn later in the program to discuss the exchange he had with the FBI Director who claimed the congressman had his facts wrong.

"Were not wrong," Rep. Gohmert quickly asserted. "Because I accused them of not doing research on the Tsarnaevs at the mosques where this were attending. And these mosques, from what I understand — and we want to drill down and find out more information — but there are other people that have been radicalized there. We need to find out and the FBI should have been curious. You know, how many people are getting radicalized at this mosque? And so when he says it was part of the "outreach" and frankly, he was — I couldn't hear him say it was our outreach efforts until afterwards, but if I had heard the outreach, I would have drilled him on that. That means my facts were right."

Gohmert continued to explain that the "outreach" comment tracks back to a prior hearing where Mueller testified and kept responding to people that the Muslim communities are exactly like every other community in America and every other religious community in the country.

"I said well, you said that, and didn't then you talked about your outreach effort to the Muslim community and you have a specific part of the FBI that does outreach for the Muslim community, so I said, how are the outreach efforts for the Baptists and the Jews and the Buddhist, how are those groups doing?" the Congressman continued.

"They think we are the enemies of this country and they are doing everything they can to support the radicals in this country. They have flipped everything upside down," Glenn added.

"It is upside down," Rep. Gohmert agreed. "You've talked about that so many times. That's exactly what happened.  And this mosque was started by the Islamic society of Boston…The Islamic society of Boston was started by Alamoudi — now doing over 20 years in prison because he was deporting terrorism."

"TheBlaze will do a week-long special this fall on Islamic radicals and we are going to name names and show all of this.  We have nailed it down and we are going to show it all.  The American people need to know -- not just the vague things like what we are talking about here," Glenn said. "You need to see how it has happened and who is involved in both parties."

"I heard you talk previously on this issue, I will be excited. I just think it's an incredible insight into really what's at stake here," Rep. Gohmert noted. "It is people's civil rights and they are being eroded and everything seems to be upside down, and so I think that's a fantastic approach, because it gets right to the truth."

"Well, Louie, you have 70 people in Washington that are not willing to sit down on this and we are going to watch your back, at least I am," Glenn responded.  "I begged for you guys to do it and now you are doing it."

The themes of healing and redemption appear throughout the Bible.

Our bodies are buried in brokenness, but they will be raised in glory. They are buried in weakness, but they will be raised in strength. — 1 Corinthians 15:43
It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners. — Mark 2:17.

So, for many Christians, it's no surprise to hear that people of faith live longer lives.

Heal me, O Lord, and I shall be healed; save me, and I shall be saved, for you are my praise. — Jeremiah 17:14.

But it is certainly lovely to hear, and a recent study by a doctoral student at Ohio State University is just one more example of empirical evidence confirming the healing benefits of faith and religious belief.

RELATED: MEDIA BIGOTRY: The New Yorker hates on Chick-fil-A over 'pervasive Christian traditionalism'

Moreover, the study finds that religious belief can lengthen a person's life.

A joyful heart is good medicine, but a crushed spirit dries up the bones. — Proverbs 17:22
Lord, your discipline is good, for it leads to life and health. You restore my health and allow me to live! — Isaiah 38:16

The study analyzed over 1,000 obituaries nationwide and found that people of faith lived longer than people who were not religious. Laura Wallace, lead author of the study, noted that "religious affiliation had nearly as strong an effect on longevity as gender does, which is a matter of years of life."

The study notes that, "people whose obits mentioned a religious affiliation lived an average of 5.64 years longer than those whose obits did not, which shrunk to 3.82 years after gender and marital status were considered."

And He called to Him His twelve disciples and gave them authority over unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal every disease and every affliction. — Matthew 10:1

"The researchers found that part of the reason for the boost in longevity came from the fact that many religiously affiliated people also volunteered and belonged to social organizations, which previous research has linked to living longer. The study provides persuasive evidence that there is a relationship between religious participation and how long a person lives," said Baldwin Way, co-author of the study and associate professor of psychology at Ohio State.

Prayer is good medicine, and faith is a good protector.

In addition, the study showed how the effects of religion on longevity might depend in part on the personality and average religiosity of the cities where people live, Way said.

Prayer is good medicine, and faith is a good protector.

And the power of the Lord was with him to heal. — Luke 5:17
Heal the sick in it and say to them, The kingdom of God has come near to you. — Luke 10:9.

In early June, the Social Security and Medicare trustees released their annual report on the fiscal health of these programs, and the situation looks dire. Medicare is scheduled to run out of money in 2026 (three years sooner than anticipated), while Social Security is expected to run out in 2034. The rising national debt is only one of the well-known financial struggles the millennial generation faces. The burdens of student loan debt, high housing prices (thanks to zoning restrictions), stagnant wage growth, the rising cost of healthcare and lingering aftershocks of the Great Recession are among the biggest sources of economic anxiety millennials feel.

Progressive politicians have been very successful at courting the youth vote, partly because they actually promote policy ideas that address many of these concerns. As unrealistic or counterproductive as Senator Bernie Sanders' proposals for single-payer health care or a $15 an hour minimum wage might be, they feel in theory like they would provide the economic stability and prosperity millennials want.

RELATED: Time to reverse course: America is being corrupted by its own power

Republicans, on the other hand, have struggled to craft a message to address these concerns. Fiscal conservatives recognize, correctly, that the burden of the $20 trillion national debt and over $200 trillion in unfunded liabilities will fall on millennials. Some conservatives have even written books about that fact. But the need to reform entitlements hasn't exactly caught millennials' attention. Pollster Kristen Soltis Anderson, in her book The Selfie Vote, notes that millennials generally view protecting the safety net as more important than reducing the deficit.

Clearly, Republicans have a problem. They need to craft solutions that address the millennial generation's struggles, but they can't seem to sell entitlement reform, their biggest policy preference that addresses those problems. The Republican approach to wooing millennials on policy is failing because talking about stopping the debt from reaching an unsustainable level is long-term and abstract, and offers few immediate tangible benefits. A new approach to both pave the way for entitlement reform and give millennials an immediate financial boost is to first reform not entitlement spending, but the payroll tax: specifically, by partially (or wholly) replacing it with a value-added tax.

Under the current Social Security model, workers pay for the benefits of current retirees through the payroll tax. This system creates the illusion of a pension program, in which what you put in is what you get out, but in reality Social Security is a universal safety net program for the elderly paid for by taxes. The payroll tax falls on workers and is a tax on labor, while the value-added tax (VAT) is a tax on consumption imposed at every part of the production process. Assuming that this policy change is revenue-neutral, switching to a VAT will shift the responsibility for funding Social Security and Medicare away from workers, disproportionately poorer and younger, and onto everyone participating in the economy as a whole. Furthermore, uncoupling Social Security funding from payroll taxes would pave the way for fiscal reforms to transform the program from a universal benefit program to one geared specifically to eliminating old-age poverty, such as means-testing benefits for high-income beneficiaries, indexing benefits to prices rather than wages or changing the retirement age.

Switching from the payroll tax to the VAT would address both conservative and liberal tax policy preferences.

Switching from the payroll tax to the VAT would address both conservative and liberal tax policy preferences. As the Tax Policy Center notes, the change would actually make the tax system more progressive. The current payroll tax is regressive, meaning that people with lower incomes tend to pay a higher effective tax rate than people with higher incomes. On the other hand, the value-added tax is much closer to proportional than the payroll tax, meaning that each income group pays closer to the same effective tax rate.

For Republicans, such a change would fit conservative economic ideas about the long-run causes of economic growth. A value-added tax has a much broader base than the payroll tax, and therefore would allow for much lower marginal tax rates, and lower marginal tax rates mean smaller disincentives to economic activity. According to the Tax Foundation's analysis of a value-added tax, the VAT would be a more economically efficient revenue source than most other taxes currently in the tax code.

Not only would replacing part or all of the payroll tax provide an immediate benefit to millennial taxpayers, it would also open the door for the much-needed entitlement reforms that have been so politically elusive. Furthermore, it would make the tax code both more pro-growth and less regressive. In order to even begin to address the entitlement crisis, win millennial support and stimulate the economy in a fiscally responsible manner, Republicans must propose moving from the payroll tax to the VAT.

Alex Muresianu is a Young Voices Advocate. His writing has appeared in Townhall and The Federalist. He is a federal policy intern at the Tax Foundation. Opinions expressed here are his only and not the views of the Tax Foundation. He can be found on Twitter @ahardtospell.

Glenn was joined by Alanna Sarabia from "Good Morning Texas" at Mercury Studios on Thursday for an exclusive look at Mercury Museum's new "Rights & Responsibilities" exhibit. Open through Father's Day, the temporary museum features artifacts from pop culture, America's founding, World Ward II and more, focusing on the rights and responsibilities America's citizens.

Get tickets and more information here.

Watch as Glenn gives a sneak peek at some of the unique artifacts on display below.

History at the Mercury Museum

Alanna Sarabia interviews Glenn Beck for "Good Morning Texas" at Mercury Studios.

Several months ago, at the Miss Universe competition, two women took a selfie, then posted it on Instagram. The caption read, "Peace and love." As a result of that selfie, both women faced death threats, and one of the women, along with her entire family, had to flee her home country. The occasion was the 2017 Miss Universe competition, and the women were Miss Iraq and Miss Israel. Miss Iraq is no longer welcome in her own country. The government threatened to strip her of her crown. Of course, she was also badgered for wearing a bikini during the competition.

RELATED: Media's anti-Israel, pro-Islam bias sweeps THIS fact under the rug

In an interview, Miss Iraq, Sarah Idan, said:

When I posted the picture I didn't think for a second there would be blowback. I woke up to calls from my family and the Miss Iraq Organization going insane. The death threats I got online were so scary. The director of the Miss Iraq Organization called me and said they're getting heat from the ministry. He said I have to take the picture down or they will strip me of my title.

Yesterday, Miss Iraq, Sarah Idan, posted another selfie with Miss Israel, during a visit to Jerusalem.

In an interview, she said that:

I don't think Iraq and Israel are enemies; I think maybe the governments are enemies with each other. There's a lot of Iraqi people that don't have a problem with Israelis.

This is, of course, quite an understatement: Iraq, home to roughly 15,000 Palestinians, refuses to acknowledge Israel as a legitimate country, as it is technically at war with Israel. The adages says that a picture is worth a thousand words. What are we to do when many of those words are hateful or deadly? And how can we find the goodness in such bad situations?