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

October 16, 2014

Writer

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.

'Rage against the dying of the light': Charlie Kirk lived that mandate

PHILL MAGAKOE / Contributor | Getty Images

Kirk’s tragic death challenges us to rise above fear and anger, to rebuild bridges where others build walls, and to fight for the America he believed in.

I’ve only felt this weight once before. It was 2001, just as my radio show was about to begin. The World Trade Center fell, and I was called to speak immediately. I spent the day and night by my bedside, praying for words that could meet the moment.

Yesterday, I found myself in the same position. September 11, 2025. The assassination of Charlie Kirk. A friend. A warrior for truth.

Out of this tragedy, the tyrant dies, but the martyr’s influence begins.

Moments like this make words feel inadequate. Yet sometimes, words from another time speak directly to our own. In 1947, Dylan Thomas, watching his father slip toward death, penned lines that now resonate far beyond his own grief:

Do not go gentle into that good night. / Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Thomas was pleading for his father to resist the impending darkness of death. But those words have become a mandate for all of us: Do not surrender. Do not bow to shadows. Even when the battle feels unwinnable.

Charlie Kirk lived that mandate. He knew the cost of speaking unpopular truths. He knew the fury of those who sought to silence him. And yet he pressed on. In his life, he embodied a defiance rooted not in anger, but in principle.

Picking up his torch

Washington, Jefferson, Adams — our history was started by men who raged against an empire, knowing the gallows might await. Lincoln raged against slavery. Martin Luther King Jr. raged against segregation. Every generation faces a call to resist surrender.

It is our turn. Charlie’s violent death feels like a knockout punch. Yet if his life meant anything, it means this: Silence in the face of darkness is not an option.

He did not go gently. He spoke. He challenged. He stood. And now, the mantle falls to us. To me. To you. To every American.

We cannot drift into the shadows. We cannot sit quietly while freedom fades. This is our moment to rage — not with hatred, not with vengeance, but with courage. Rage against lies, against apathy, against the despair that tells us to do nothing. Because there is always something you can do.

Even small acts — defiance, faith, kindness — are light in the darkness. Reaching out to those who mourn. Speaking truth in a world drowning in deceit. These are the flames that hold back the night. Charlie carried that torch. He laid it down yesterday. It is ours to pick up.

The light may dim, but it always does before dawn. Commit today: I will not sleep as freedom fades. I will not retreat as darkness encroaches. I will not be silent as evil forces claim dominion. I have no king but Christ. And I know whom I serve, as did Charlie.

Two turning points, decades apart

On Wednesday, the world changed again. Two tragedies, separated by decades, bound by the same question: Who are we? Is this worth saving? What kind of people will we choose to be?

Imagine a world where more of us choose to be peacemakers. Not passive, not silent, but builders of bridges where others erect walls. Respect and listening transform even the bitterest of foes. Charlie Kirk embodied this principle.

He did not strike the weak; he challenged the powerful. He reached across divides of politics, culture, and faith. He changed hearts. He sparked healing. And healing is what our nation needs.

At the center of all this is one truth: Every person is a child of God, deserving of dignity. Change will not happen in Washington or on social media. It begins at home, where loneliness and isolation threaten our souls. Family is the antidote. Imperfect, yes — but still the strongest source of stability and meaning.

Mark Wilson / Staff | Getty Images

Forgiveness, fidelity, faithfulness, and honor are not dusty words. They are the foundation of civilization. Strong families produce strong citizens. And today, Charlie’s family mourns. They must become our family too. We must stand as guardians of his legacy, shining examples of the courage he lived by.

A time for courage

I knew Charlie. I know how he would want us to respond: Multiply his courage. Out of this tragedy, the tyrant dies, but the martyr’s influence begins. Out of darkness, great and glorious things will sprout — but we must be worthy of them.

Charlie Kirk lived defiantly. He stood in truth. He changed the world. And now, his torch is in our hands. Rage, not in violence, but in unwavering pursuit of truth and goodness. Rage against the dying of the light.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Glenn Beck resurrects the 9-12 Project to support Charlie Kirk's family

Glenn Beck is once again calling on his loyal listeners and viewers to come together and channel the same unity and purpose that defined the historic 9-12 Project. That movement, born in the wake of national challenges, brought millions together to revive core values of faith, hope, and charity.

Glenn created the original 9-12 Project in early 2009 to bring Americans back to where they were in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. In those moments, we weren't Democrats and Republicans, conservative or liberal, Red States or Blue States, we were united as one, as America. The original 9-12 Project aimed to root America back in the founding principles of this country that united us during those darkest of days.

This new initiative draws directly from that legacy, focusing on supporting the family of Charlie Kirk in these dark days following his tragic murder.

The revival of the 9-12 Project aims to secure the long-term well-being of Charlie Kirk's wife and children. All donations will go straight to meeting their immediate and future needs. If the family deems the funds surplus to their requirements, Charlie's wife has the option to redirect them toward the vital work of Turning Point USA.

This campaign is more than just financial support—it's a profound gesture of appreciation for Kirk's tireless dedication to the cause of liberty. It embodies the unbreakable bond of our community, proving that when we stand united, we can make a real difference.
Glenn Beck invites you to join this effort. Show your solidarity by donating today and honoring Charlie Kirk and his family in this meaningful way.

You can learn more about the 9-12 Project and donate HERE

The dangerous lie: Rights as government privileges, not God-given

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

When politicians claim that rights flow from the state, they pave the way for tyranny.

Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) recently delivered a lecture that should alarm every American. During a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing, he argued that believing rights come from a Creator rather than government is the same belief held by Iran’s theocratic regime.

Kaine claimed that the principles underpinning Iran’s dictatorship — the same regime that persecutes Sunnis, Jews, Christians, and other minorities — are also the principles enshrined in our Declaration of Independence.

In America, rights belong to the individual. In Iran, rights serve the state.

That claim exposes either a profound misunderstanding or a reckless indifference to America’s founding. Rights do not come from government. They never did. They come from the Creator, as the Declaration of Independence proclaims without qualification. Jefferson didn’t hedge. Rights are unalienable — built into every human being.

This foundation stands worlds apart from Iran. Its leaders invoke God but grant rights only through clerical interpretation. Freedom of speech, property, religion, and even life itself depend on obedience to the ruling clerics. Step outside their dictates, and those so-called rights vanish.

This is not a trivial difference. It is the essence of liberty versus tyranny. In America, rights belong to the individual. The government’s role is to secure them, not define them. In Iran, rights serve the state. They empower rulers, not the people.

From Muhammad to Marx

The same confusion applies to Marxist regimes. The Soviet Union’s constitutions promised citizens rights — work, health care, education, freedom of speech — but always with fine print. If you spoke out against the party, those rights evaporated. If you practiced religion openly, you were charged with treason. Property and voting were allowed as long as they were filtered and controlled by the state — and could be revoked at any moment. Rights were conditional, granted through obedience.

Kaine seems to be advocating a similar approach — whether consciously or not. By claiming that natural rights are somehow comparable to sharia law, he ignores the critical distinction between inherent rights and conditional privileges. He dismisses the very principle that made America a beacon of freedom.

Jefferson and the founders understood this clearly. “We are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights,” they wrote. No government, no cleric, no king can revoke them. They exist by virtue of humanity itself. The government exists to protect them, not ration them.

This is not a theological quibble. It is the entire basis of our government. Confuse the source of rights, and tyranny hides behind piety or ideology. The people are disempowered. Clerics, bureaucrats, or politicians become arbiters of what rights citizens may enjoy.

John Greim / Contributor | Getty Images

Gifts from God, not the state

Kaine’s statement reflects either a profound ignorance of this principle or an ideological bias that favors state power over individual liberty. Either way, Americans must recognize the danger. Understanding the origin of rights is not academic — it is the difference between freedom and submission, between the American experiment and theocratic or totalitarian rule.

Rights are not gifts from the state. They are gifts from God, secured by reason, protected by law, and defended by the people. Every American must understand this. Because when rights come from government instead of the Creator, freedom disappears.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

POLL: Is Gen Z’s anger over housing driving them toward socialism?

NurPhoto / Contributor | Getty Images

A recent poll conducted by Justin Haskins, a long-time friend of the show, has uncovered alarming trends among young Americans aged 18-39, revealing a generation grappling with deep frustrations over economic hardships, housing affordability, and a perceived rigged system that favors the wealthy, corporations, and older generations. While nearly half of these likely voters approve of President Trump, seeing him as an anti-establishment figure, over 70% support nationalizing major industries, such as healthcare, energy, and big tech, to promote "equity." Shockingly, 53% want a democratic socialist to win the 2028 presidential election, including a third of Trump voters and conservatives in this age group. Many cite skyrocketing housing costs, unfair taxation on the middle class, and a sense of being "stuck" or in crisis as driving forces, with 62% believing the economy is tilted against them and 55% backing laws to confiscate "excess wealth" like second homes or luxury items to help first-time buyers.

This blend of Trump support and socialist leanings suggests a volatile mix: admiration for disruptors who challenge the status quo, coupled with a desire for radical redistribution to address personal struggles. Yet, it raises profound questions about the roots of this discontent—Is it a failure of education on history's lessons about socialism's failures? Media indoctrination? Or genuine systemic barriers? And what does it portend for the nation’s trajectory—greater division, a shift toward authoritarian policies, or an opportunity for renewal through timeless values like hard work and individual responsibility?

Glenn wants to know what YOU think: Where do Gen Z's socialist sympathies come from? What does it mean for the future of America? Make your voice heard in the poll below:

Do you believe the Gen Z support for socialism comes from perceived economic frustrations like unaffordable housing and a rigged system favoring the wealthy and corporations?

Do you believe the Gen Z support for socialism, including many Trump supporters, is due to a lack of education about the historical failures of socialist systems?

Do you think that these poll results indicate a growing generational divide that could lead to more political instability and authoritarian tendencies in America's future?

Do you think that this poll implies that America's long-term stability relies on older generations teaching Gen Z and younger to prioritize self-reliance, free-market ideals, and personal accountability?

Glenn's Show Prep