More troops headed to West Africa? Glenn’s interview with Rep Louie Gohmert

Glenn spoke with Rep. Louie Gohmert on radio today about the possibility that President Obama is sending more troops to the hot zone in West Africa where Ebola is running wild. Why are such poor decisions being made and will heads roll because of all the failures?

Check out the interview from radio today:

Below is a rush transcript of this segment:

GLENN: Welcome to the program. So glad that you're here. Louie Gohmert has joined us now he's in Tyler, Texas. Hello, congressman, how are you, sir?

GOHMERT: As far as I know I'm okay, but do any of us really know for sure?

GLENN: Well, if the CDC says you're not okay, then you're okay in my book.

GOHMERT: Yeah, and it's a shame that the CDC had Frieden apparently as the new commander of the Democrat's war on the women nurses because good night, they set them up and then they throw them under the bus.

GLENN: I have to tell you, the CDC throwing this nurse under the bus and us finding out today that she called the CDC before she got onto a plane and said, what do I do? And they said, oh, you're fine get on a plane is reprehensible.

GOHMERT: Well, Glenn, the first nurse -- they come out and say clearly she had violated protocol. I mean, at least in football they have to tell you what you violated. What rules that you violated. They couldn't tell them what protocol they violated. Why? Because there was no protocol.

GLENN: Here's the thing, Louie. We went through a list of things the CDC has spent on, all the way from mood lighting. How much was the mood lighting, Stu? Was like 100 and something odd thousand dollars. You didn't hear that one? Yeah, it was on the show last night.

Mood lighting for their offices. They built bike paths for $500 million. They haven't done any of this stuff, and they are completely and totally out of control. Congressman, I'm going to send this to you so you have that list. It's reprehensible. But is anybody going to be held responsible? Is anyone going to call for the resignation for Tom Frieden?

GOHMERT: I sure hope so. He needs to be gone. But I don't know how far down these political appointees go, that don't know sic 'em from come here.

But, Glenn, yesterday when you put on the material that the CDC says to use, can you imagine being one of our -- what was originally 3,000 and now is going to be 5,000 military going to West Africa. They're not -- enlisted don't carry sidearms. Basically unarmed. Many living in tents. I thought we learned that you don't send people in places unless you're prepared against terrorists. And they're going to wear according to the general in charge they're going to wear, quote, gloves and masks. And they're going to wash their hands several times a day. Now, seeing what you saw yesterday, experience personally, can you imagine our poor military in Ebola epidemic West Africa wearing masks and gloves?

GLENN: Louie, our military doesn't belong there.

GOHMERT: They don't.

GLENN: Here's what happens: If I'm the president of the United States I go on TV today and say I need volunteers. I need Christian volunteers. People with nursing or construction experience that are going to go with me to South Africa -- or, to West Africa and I'm going to take a transport plane and I need Home Depot to step and up if you want to help us build some hospitals we'll load some planes up, and I need volunteers that will go in and help build these hospitals with volunteers from the military and the Corps of engineer. And we'll line it all up and we'll drop in there and we'll take care of it, but you do not take our military and assign them this and then what? Quarantine them, what, in the VA? Yeah, we know how they'll be treated when they get back in the VA.

GOHMERT: Glenn, originally they said it would only be six months. The general in charge said, it's probably going to be about a year. And originally they said they would not have direct contact with people with Ebola, but they said that mission may change. I mean, you're exactly right, but even if you didn't care about our military members still even from a financial standpoint, you spend millions, 700 of the first people going are from the 101st Airborne Division. These are some of the most expensively trained military weapons we have, and we're sending them --

GLENN: We're sending the 101st -- Louie, this is criminal negligence. The president yesterday talked about how we couldn't hurt the economy of West Africa. They don't have an economy in West Africa for the love of Pete. Yesterday, we had because of two people having Ebola, our stock market dropped 400 points. Now, it rebounded, but at one point it was 400 points. It's down another 111 points this morning? I mean, this is -- and they are claiming it is all because of the Ebola scare. What do you think is going to happen to our economy if the experts are right that in two months we're going to have 10,000 new patients every week and 980,000 dead by January?

GOHMERT: Well, that would be as outrageous as leaving our state department personnel in Baghdad right now while it's being surrounded with no way out just like they did many of our personnel in Yemen while it's being surrounded. I don't know who is calling the shots behind this president, but it's getting people killed, and it's exposing our country to tremendous -- exploiting --

GLENN: What do we do, Louie? We're sitting here -- Allen Grayson of all people back in July said we need to stop all air travel to West Africa at least from West Africa. These are things that airlines can do themselves. They can clearly do it. I don't think they're going to do it because they're afraid of political ramifications, but cannot congress do something. You guys have to be on the record on this.

GOHMERT: We can cut off every dime that the president might use to put our people in situations they shouldn't be in, but that takes courage from the Republican leadership and it takes longness to make America before the Democrats and Harry Reid.

GLENN: I'm ask you, Louie, can Congress stop the air travel out of West Africa? I mean, yesterday the CDC said -- and I want to read this to you because I couldn't believe they had the balls to say this. Yesterday here in Texas, they have imposed new travel restrictions on health care workers that may have cared for the first Dallas Ebola patient. They're going to block those from using public transportation, including buses and airliners. This is, quote, following the minimum guidelines outlined by the Center for Disease Control and prevention. They are going to block those from using public buses and airliners.

PAT: So we can do that in Dallas, we can't do it in West Africa?

GOHMERT: That's what's so insane. Frieden can say with a straight face that it would do more harm than good. And, of course, John Kerry said the same thing. If with we stop travel from those countries that have Ebola epidemics when their own mantra on these other issues is, oh, you can't take public transportation. It's scary that these people are in charge of what they are. So many inconsistencies.

GLENN: At what point does Rick Perry say we're being squeezed on our southern border and if Ebola hits -- now, it's just hit in Brazil. If it hits in Mexico and starts to spread, you've never seen an influx like you'll see on our southern border. And they'll come across because they'll want American health care. So we'll be squeezed on our southern border. We're being squeezed now by Ebola economically. I just had a client cancel. He was supposed to fly in today and meet with me. He just canceled. He said our company won't fly to Texas until this thing is over. This is going to squeeze Texas. At what point does the state say: We're taking care of it because the federal government is criminally negligent?

GOHMERT: Well, you don't to have worry about Texas being squeezed on our southern border, Glenn. You and I have both been down there, we won't get squeezed. They'll just come on in and then our health and human services will pack them up and ship them around the country. So we don't have to worry about Texas being squeezed on the southern border. They're going to come right on in no squeezing and then we ship them around the country. That's what HHS has been doing. And our border control, they don't have any equipment to check -- people come in --

GLENN: Congressman, my question is: At what point does Texas say, we have to preserve the state of Texas, and the federal government is doing harm to the people of Texas. Look at what they've done by not stopping the flights out of West Africa. They allowed this Nigerian to come into the great state of Texas and now possibly start a pandemic. At what point do we say: Texas is not going to be accepting anyone from other -- that have passed through West Africa. You're not going to come into our state. At what point will American Airlines which is based here in Dallas, say we're not flying anybody who has come from West Africa? What point do we say, we're issuing our own guidelines here because the federal government is not doing it.

GOHMERT: I sure hope we're within two or three weeks of that happening. It needs to happen. Someone has to have some sanity in an executive position, but obviously it's not in the top level. I'm appreciative of the president holding up the massive fundraising and the political trek he's been on just to meet with some people. We don't get his briefings all that often. It's great when he stops and does that. You're right. Texas is going to have to do it itself just as Texas did in sending game wardens, National Guard, rangers down to the border. It has actually made a difference.

I know Jay Johnson at Homeland Security wants to take credit and say, oh, well, it's just a seasonal thing, no, it's because Texas put people on the border. But I think you're right, Glenn. Texas is going to have to do it itself. This president has shown nothing, but contempt for the people of Texas, and it ought to be clear Texas is going to have to protect itself.

GLENN: Thank you very much. Louie Gohmert, congressman from Texas. God bless you.

Is the U.N. plotting to control 30% of U.S. land by 2030?

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

A reliable conservative senator faces cancellation for listening to voters. But the real threat to public lands comes from the last president’s backdoor globalist agenda.

Something ugly is unfolding on social media, and most people aren’t seeing it clearly. Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) — one of the most constitutionally grounded conservatives in Washington — is under fire for a housing provision he first proposed in 2022.

You wouldn’t know that from scrolling through X. According to the latest online frenzy, Lee wants to sell off national parks, bulldoze public lands, gut hunting and fishing rights, and hand America’s wilderness to Amazon, BlackRock, and the Chinese Communist Party. None of that is true.

Lee’s bill would have protected against the massive land-grab that’s already under way — courtesy of the Biden administration.

I covered this last month. Since then, the backlash has grown into something like a political witch hunt — not just from the left but from the right. Even Donald Trump Jr., someone I typically agree with, has attacked Lee’s proposal. He’s not alone.

Time to look at the facts the media refuses to cover about Lee’s federal land plan.

What Lee actually proposed

Over the weekend, Lee announced that he would withdraw the federal land sale provision from his housing bill. He said the decision was in response to “a tremendous amount of misinformation — and in some cases, outright lies,” but also acknowledged that many Americans brought forward sincere, thoughtful concerns.

Because of the strict rules surrounding the budget reconciliation process, Lee couldn’t secure legally enforceable protections to ensure that the land would be made available “only to American families — not to China, not to BlackRock, and not to any foreign interests.” Without those safeguards, he chose to walk it back.

That’s not selling out. That’s leadership.

It's what the legislative process is supposed to look like: A senator proposes a bill, the people respond, and the lawmaker listens. That was once known as representative democracy. These days, it gets you labeled a globalist sellout.

The Biden land-grab

To many Americans, “public land” brings to mind open spaces for hunting, fishing, hiking, and recreation. But that’s not what Sen. Mike Lee’s bill targeted.

His proposal would have protected against the real land-grab already under way — the one pushed by the Biden administration.

In 2021, Biden launched a plan to “conserve” 30% of America’s lands and waters by 2030. This effort follows the United Nations-backed “30 by 30” initiative, which seeks to place one-third of all land and water under government control.

Ask yourself: Is the U.N. focused on preserving your right to hunt and fish? Or are radical environmentalists exploiting climate fears to restrict your access to American land?

  Smith Collection/Gado / Contributor | Getty Images

As it stands, the federal government already owns 640 million acres — nearly one-third of the entire country. At this rate, the government will hit that 30% benchmark with ease. But it doesn’t end there. The next phase is already in play: the “50 by 50” agenda.

That brings me to a piece of legislation most Americans haven’t even heard of: the Sustains Act.

Passed in 2023, the law allows the federal government to accept private funding from organizations, such as BlackRock or the Bill Gates Foundation, to support “conservation programs.” In practice, the law enables wealthy elites to buy influence over how American land is used and managed.

Moreover, the government doesn’t even need the landowner’s permission to declare that your property contributes to “pollination,” or “photosynthesis,” or “air quality” — and then regulate it accordingly. You could wake up one morning and find out that the land you own no longer belongs to you in any meaningful sense.

Where was the outrage then? Where were the online crusaders when private capital and federal bureaucrats teamed up to quietly erode private property rights across America?

American families pay the price

The real danger isn’t in Mike Lee’s attempt to offer more housing near population centers — land that would be limited, clarified, and safeguarded in the final bill. The real threat is the creeping partnership between unelected global elites and our own government, a partnership designed to consolidate land, control rural development, and keep Americans penned in so-called “15-minute cities.”

BlackRock buying entire neighborhoods and pricing out regular families isn’t by accident. It’s part of a larger strategy to centralize populations into manageable zones, where cars are unnecessary, rural living is unaffordable, and every facet of life is tracked, regulated, and optimized.

That’s the real agenda. And it’s already happening , and Mike Lee’s bill would have been an effort to ensure that you — not BlackRock, not China — get first dibs.

I live in a town of 451 people. Even here, in the middle of nowhere, housing is unaffordable. The American dream of owning a patch of land is slipping away, not because of one proposal from a constitutional conservative, but because global powers and their political allies are already devouring it.

Divide and conquer

This controversy isn’t really about Mike Lee. It’s about whether we, as a nation, are still capable of having honest debates about public policy — or whether the online mob now controls the narrative. It’s about whether conservatives will focus on facts or fall into the trap of friendly fire and circular firing squads.

More importantly, it’s about whether we’ll recognize the real land-grab happening in our country — and have the courage to fight back before it’s too late.


This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

URGENT: FIVE steps to CONTROL AI before it's too late!

MANAURE QUINTERO / Contributor | Getty Images

By now, many of us are familiar with AI and its potential benefits and threats. However, unless you're a tech tycoon, it can feel like you have little influence over the future of artificial intelligence.

For years, Glenn has warned about the dangers of rapidly developing AI technologies that have taken the world by storm.

He acknowledges their significant benefits but emphasizes the need to establish proper boundaries and ethics now, while we still have control. But since most people aren’t Silicon Valley tech leaders making the decisions, how can they help keep AI in check?

Recently, Glenn interviewed Tristan Harris, a tech ethicist deeply concerned about the potential harm of unchecked AI, to discuss its societal implications. Harris highlighted a concerning new piece of legislation proposed by Texas Senator Ted Cruz. This legislation proposes a state-level moratorium on AI regulation, meaning only the federal government could regulate AI. Harris noted that there’s currently no Federal plan for regulating AI. Until the federal government establishes a plan, tech companies would have nearly free rein with their AI. And we all know how slowly the federal government moves.

  

This is where you come in. Tristan Harris shared with Glenn the top five actions you should urge your representatives to take regarding AI, including opposing the moratorium until a concrete plan is in place. Now is your chance to influence the future of AI. Contact your senator and congressman today and share these five crucial steps they must take to keep AI in check:

Ban engagement-optimized AI companions for kids

Create legislation that will prevent AI from being designed to maximize addiction, sexualization, flattery, and attachment disorders, and to protect young people’s mental health and ability to form real-life friendships.

Establish basic liability laws

Companies need to be held accountable when their products cause real-world harm.

Pass increased whistleblower protections

Protect concerned technologists working inside the AI labs from facing untenable pressures and threats that prevent them from warning the public when the AI rollout is unsafe or crosses dangerous red lines.

Prevent AI from having legal rights

Enact laws so AIs don’t have protected speech or have their own bank accounts, making sure our legal system works for human interests over AI interests.

Oppose the state moratorium on AI 

Call your congressman or Senator Cruz’s office, and demand they oppose the state moratorium on AI without a plan for how we will set guardrails for this technology.

Glenn: Only Trump dared to deliver on decades of empty promises

Tasos Katopodis / Stringer | Getty Images

The Islamic regime has been killing Americans since 1979. Now Trump’s response proves we’re no longer playing defense — we’re finally hitting back.

The United States has taken direct military action against Iran’s nuclear program. Whatever you think of the strike, it’s over. It’s happened. And now, we have to predict what happens next. I want to help you understand the gravity of this situation: what happened, what it means, and what might come next. To that end, we need to begin with a little history.

Since 1979, Iran has been at war with us — even if we refused to call it that.

We are either on the verge of a remarkable strategic victory or a devastating global escalation. Time will tell.

It began with the hostage crisis, when 66 Americans were seized and 52 were held for over a year by the radical Islamic regime. Four years later, 17 more Americans were murdered in the U.S. Embassy bombing in Beirut, followed by 241 Marines in the Beirut barracks bombing.

Then came the Khobar Towers bombing in 1996, which killed 19 more U.S. airmen. Iran had its fingerprints all over it.

In Iraq and Afghanistan, Iranian-backed proxies killed hundreds of American soldiers. From 2001 to 2020 in Afghanistan and 2003 to 2011 in Iraq, Iran supplied IEDs and tactical support.

The Iranians have plotted assassinations and kidnappings on U.S. soil — in 2011, 2021, and again in 2024 — and yet we’ve never really responded.

The precedent for U.S. retaliation has always been present, but no president has chosen to pull the trigger until this past weekend. President Donald Trump struck decisively. And what our military pulled off this weekend was nothing short of extraordinary.

Operation Midnight Hammer

The strike was reportedly called Operation Midnight Hammer. It involved as many as 175 U.S. aircraft, including 12 B-2 stealth bombers — out of just 19 in our entire arsenal. Those bombers are among the most complex machines in the world, and they were kept mission-ready by some of the finest mechanics on the planet.

   USAF / Handout | Getty Images

To throw off Iranian radar and intelligence, some bombers flew west toward Guam — classic misdirection. The rest flew east, toward the real targets.

As the B-2s approached Iranian airspace, U.S. submarines launched dozens of Tomahawk missiles at Iran’s fortified nuclear facilities. Minutes later, the bombers dropped 14 MOPs — massive ordnance penetrators — each designed to drill deep into the earth and destroy underground bunkers. These bombs are the size of an F-16 and cost millions of dollars apiece. They are so accurate, I’ve been told they can hit the top of a soda can from 15,000 feet.

They were built for this mission — and we’ve been rehearsing this run for 15 years.

If the satellite imagery is accurate — and if what my sources tell me is true — the targeted nuclear sites were utterly destroyed. We’ll likely rely on the Israelis to confirm that on the ground.

This was a master class in strategy, execution, and deterrence. And it proved that only the United States could carry out a strike like this. I am very proud of our military, what we are capable of doing, and what we can accomplish.

What comes next

We don’t yet know how Iran will respond, but many of the possibilities are troubling. The Iranians could target U.S. forces across the Middle East. On Monday, Tehran launched 20 missiles at U.S. bases in Qatar, Syria, and Kuwait, to no effect. God forbid, they could also unleash Hezbollah or other terrorist proxies to strike here at home — and they just might.

Iran has also threatened to shut down the Strait of Hormuz — the artery through which nearly a fifth of the world’s oil flows. On Sunday, Iran’s parliament voted to begin the process. If the Supreme Council and the ayatollah give the go-ahead, we could see oil prices spike to $150 or even $200 a barrel.

That would be catastrophic.

The 2008 financial collapse was pushed over the edge when oil hit $130. Western economies — including ours — simply cannot sustain oil above $120 for long. If this conflict escalates and the Strait is closed, the global economy could unravel.

The strike also raises questions about regime stability. Will it spark an uprising, or will the Islamic regime respond with a brutal crackdown on dissidents?

Early signs aren’t hopeful. Reports suggest hundreds of arrests over the weekend and at least one dissident executed on charges of spying for Israel. The regime’s infamous morality police, the Gasht-e Ershad, are back on the streets. Every phone, every vehicle — monitored. The U.S. embassy in Qatar issued a shelter-in-place warning for Americans.

Russia and China both condemned the strike. On Monday, a senior Iranian official flew to Moscow to meet with Vladimir Putin. That meeting should alarm anyone paying attention. Their alliance continues to deepen — and that’s a serious concern.

Now we pray

We are either on the verge of a remarkable strategic victory or a devastating global escalation. Time will tell. But either way, President Trump didn’t start this. He inherited it — and he took decisive action.

The difference is, he did what they all said they would do. He didn’t send pallets of cash in the dead of night. He didn’t sign another failed treaty.

He acted. Now, we pray. For peace, for wisdom, and for the strength to meet whatever comes next.


This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Globalize the Intifada? Why Mamdani’s plan spells DOOM for America

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

If New Yorkers hand City Hall to Zohran Mamdani, they’re not voting for change. They’re opening the door to an alliance of socialism, Islamism, and chaos.

It only took 25 years for New York City to go from the resilient, flag-waving pride following the 9/11 attacks to a political fever dream. To quote Michael Malice, “I'm old enough to remember when New Yorkers endured 9/11 instead of voting for it.”

Malice is talking about Zohran Mamdani, a Democratic Socialist assemblyman from Queens now eyeing the mayor’s office. Mamdani, a 33-year-old state representative emerging from relative political obscurity, is now receiving substantial funding for his mayoral campaign from the Council on American-Islamic Relations.

CAIR has a long and concerning history, including being born out of the Muslim Brotherhood and named an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation terror funding case. Why would the group have dropped $100,000 into a PAC backing Mamdani’s campaign?

Mamdani blends political Islam with Marxist economics — two ideologies that have left tens of millions dead in the 20th century alone.

Perhaps CAIR has a vested interest in Mamdani’s call to “globalize the intifada.” That’s not a call for peaceful protest. Intifada refers to historic uprisings of Muslims against what they call the “Israeli occupation of Palestine.” Suicide bombings and street violence are part of the playbook. So when Mamdani says he wants to “globalize” that, who exactly is the enemy in this global scenario? Because it sure sounds like he's saying America is the new Israel, and anyone who supports Western democracy is the new Zionist.

Mamdani tried to clean up his language by citing the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum, which once used “intifada” in an Arabic-language article to describe the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising. So now he’s comparing Palestinians to Jewish victims of the Nazis? If that doesn’t twist your stomach into knots, you’re not paying attention.

If you’re “globalizing” an intifada, and positioning Israel — and now America — as the Nazis, that’s not a cry for human rights. That’s a call for chaos and violence.

Rising Islamism

But hey, this is New York. Faculty members at Columbia University — where Mamdani’s own father once worked — signed a letter defending students who supported Hamas after October 7. They also contributed to Mamdani’s mayoral campaign. And his father? He blamed Ronald Reagan and the religious right for inspiring Islamic terrorism, as if the roots of 9/11 grew in Washington, not the caves of Tora Bora.

   Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

 

This isn’t about Islam as a faith. We should distinguish between Islam and Islamism. Islam is a religion followed peacefully by millions. Islamism is something entirely different — an ideology that seeks to merge mosque and state, impose Sharia law, and destroy secular liberal democracies from within. Islamism isn’t about prayer and fasting. It’s about power.

Criticizing Islamism is not Islamophobia. It is not an attack on peaceful Muslims. In fact, Muslims are often its first victims.

Islamism is misogynistic, theocratic, violent, and supremacist. It’s hostile to free speech, religious pluralism, gay rights, secularism — even to moderate Muslims. Yet somehow, the progressive left — the same left that claims to fight for feminism, LGBTQ rights, and free expression — finds itself defending candidates like Mamdani. You can’t make this stuff up.

Blending the worst ideologies

And if that weren’t enough, Mamdani also identifies as a Democratic Socialist. He blends political Islam with Marxist economics — two ideologies that have left tens of millions dead in the 20th century alone. But don’t worry, New York. I’m sure this time socialism will totally work. Just like it always didn’t.

If you’re a business owner, a parent, a person who’s saved anything, or just someone who values sanity: Get out. I’m serious. If Mamdani becomes mayor, as seems likely, then New York City will become a case study in what happens when you marry ideological extremism with political power. And it won’t be pretty.

This is about more than one mayoral race. It’s about the future of Western liberalism. It’s about drawing a bright line between faith and fanaticism, between healthy pluralism and authoritarian dogma.

Call out radicalism

We must call out political Islam the same way we call out white nationalism or any other supremacist ideology. When someone chants “globalize the intifada,” that should send a chill down your spine — whether you’re Jewish, Christian, Muslim, atheist, or anything in between.

The left may try to shame you into silence with words like “Islamophobia,” but the record is worn out. The grooves are shallow. The American people see what’s happening. And we’re not buying it.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.