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.

The Woodrow Wilson strategy to get out of Mother’s Day

Stock Montage / Contributor, Xinhua News Agency / Contributor | Getty Images

I’ve got a potentially helpful revelation that’s gonna blow the lid off your plans for this Sunday. It’s Mother’s Day.

Yeah, that sacred day where you’re guilt-tripped into buying flowers, braving crowded brunch buffets, and pretending you didn’t forget to mail the card. But what if I told you… you don’t have to do it? That’s right, there’s a loophole, a get-out-of-Mother’s-Day-free card, and it’s stamped with the name of none other than… Woodrow Wilson (I hate that guy).

Back in 1914, ol’ Woody Wilson signed a proclamation that officially made Mother’s Day a national holiday. Second Sunday in May, every year. He said it was a day to “publicly express our love and reverence for the mothers of our country.” Sounds sweet, right? Until you peel back the curtain.

See, Wilson wasn’t some sentimental guy sitting around knitting doilies for his mom. No, no, no. This was a calculated move.

The idea for Mother’s Day had been floating around for decades, pushed by influential voices like Julia Ward Howe. By 1911, states were jumping on the bandwagon, but it took Wilson to make it federal. Why? Because he was a master of optics. This guy loved big, symbolic gestures to distract from the real stuff he was up to, like, oh, I don’t know, reshaping the entire federal government!

So here’s the deal: if you’re looking for an excuse to skip Mother’s Day, just lean into this. Say, “Sorry, Mom, I’m not celebrating a holiday cooked up by Woodrow Wilson!” I mean, think about it – this is the guy who gave us the Federal Reserve, the income tax, and don’t even get me started on his assault on basic liberties during World War I. You wanna trust THAT guy with your Sunday plans? I don’t think so! You tell your mom, “Look, I love you, but I’m not observing a Progressive holiday. I’m keeping my brunch money in protest.”

Now, I know what you might be thinking.

“Glenn, my mom’s gonna kill me if I try this.” Fair point. Moms can be scary. But hear me out: you can spin this. Tell her you’re honoring her EVERY DAY instead of some government-mandated holiday. You don’t need Wilson’s permission to love your mom! You can bake her a cake in June, call her in July, or, here’s a wild idea, visit her WITHOUT a Woodrow Wilson federal proclamation guilting you into it.

Silent genocide exposed: Are christians being wiped out in 2025?

Aldara Zarraoa / Contributor | Getty Images

Is a Christian Genocide unfolding overseas?

Recent reports suggest an alarming escalation in violence against Christians, raising questions about whether these acts constitute genocide under international law. Recently, Glenn hosted former U.S. Army Special Forces Sniper Tim Kennedy, who discussed a predictive model that forecasts a surge in global Christian persecution for the summer of 2025.

From Africa to Asia and the Middle East, extreme actions—some described as genocidal—have intensified over the past year. Over 380 million Christians worldwide face high levels of persecution, a number that continues to climb. With rising international concern, the United Nations and human rights groups are urging protective measures by the global community. Is a Christian genocide being waged in the far corners of the globe? Where are they taking place, and what is being done?

India: Hindu Extremist Violence Escalates

Yawar Nazir / Contributor | Getty Images

In India, attacks on Christians have surged as Hindu extremist groups gain influence within the country. In February 2025, Hindu nationalist leader Aadesh Soni organized a 50,000-person rally in Chhattisgarh, where he called for the rape and murder of all Christians in nearby villages and demanded the execution of Christian leaders to erase Christianity. Other incidents include forced conversions, such as a June 2024 attack in Chhattisgarh, where a Hindu mob gave Christian families a 10-day ultimatum to convert to Hinduism. In December 2024, a Christian man in Uttar Pradesh was attacked, forcibly converted, and paraded while the mob chanted "Death to Jesus."

The United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) recommends designating India a "Country of Particular Concern" and imposing targeted sanctions on those perpetrating these attacks. The international community is increasingly alarmed by the rising tide of religious violence in India.

Syria: Sectarian Violence Post-Regime Change

LOUAI BESHARA / Contributor | Getty Images

Following the collapse of the Assad regime in December 2024, Syria has seen a wave of sectarian violence targeting religious minorities, including Christians, with over 1,000 killed in early 2025. It remains unclear whether Christians are deliberately targeted or caught in broader conflicts, but many fear persecution by the new regime or extremist groups. Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), a dominant rebel group and known al-Qaeda splinter group now in power, is known for anti-Christian sentiments, heightening fears of increased persecution.

Christians, especially converts from Islam, face severe risks in the unstable post-regime environment. The international community is calling for humanitarian aid and protection for Syria’s vulnerable minority communities.

Democratic Republic of Congo: A "Silent Genocide"

Hugh Kinsella Cunningham / Stringer | Getty Images

In February 2025, the Allied Democratic Forces (ADF), an ISIS-affiliated group, beheaded 70 Christians—men, women, and children—in a Protestant church in North Kivu, Democratic Republic of Congo, after tying their hands. This horrific massacre, described as a "silent genocide" reminiscent of the 1994 Rwandan genocide, has shocked the global community.

Since 1996, the ADF and other militias have killed over six million people, with Christians frequently targeted. A Christmas 2024 attack killed 46, further decimating churches in the region. With violence escalating, humanitarian organizations are urging immediate international intervention to address the crisis.

POLL: Starbase exposed: Musk’s vision or corporate takeover?

MIGUEL J. RODRIGUEZ CARRILLO / Contributor | Getty Images

Is Starbase the future of innovation or a step too far?

Elon Musk’s ambitious Starbase project in South Texas is reshaping Boca Chica into a cutting-edge hub for SpaceX’s Starship program, promising thousands of jobs and a leap toward Mars colonization. Supporters see Musk as a visionary, driving economic growth and innovation in a historically underserved region. However, local critics, including Brownsville residents and activists, argue that SpaceX’s presence raises rents, restricts beach access, and threatens environmental harm, with Starbase’s potential incorporation as a city sparking fears of unchecked corporate control. As pro-Musk advocates clash with anti-Musk skeptics, will Starbase unite the community or deepen the divide?

Let us know what you think in the poll below:

Is Starbase’s development a big win for South Texas?

Should Starbase become its own city?

Is Elon Musk’s vision more of a benefit than a burden for the region?

Shocking truth behind Trump-Zelenskyy mineral deal unveiled

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy have finalized a landmark agreement that will shape the future of U.S.-Ukraine relations. The agreement focuses on mineral access and war recovery.

After a tense March meeting, Trump and Zelenskyy signed a deal on Wednesday, April 30, 2025, granting the U.S. preferential mineral rights in Ukraine in exchange for continued military support. Glenn analyzed an earlier version of the agreement in March, when Zelenskyy rejected it, highlighting its potential benefits for America, Ukraine, and Europe. Glenn praised the deal’s strategic alignment with U.S. interests, including reducing reliance on China for critical minerals and fostering regional peace.

However, the agreement signed this week differs from the March proposal Glenn praised. Negotiations led to significant revisions, reflecting compromises on both sides. What changes were made? What did each leader seek, and what did they achieve? How will this deal impact the future of U.S.-Ukraine relations and global geopolitics? Below, we break down the key aspects of the agreement.

What did Trump want?

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Trump aimed to curb what many perceive as Ukraine’s overreliance on U.S. aid while securing strategic advantages for America. His primary goals included obtaining reimbursement for the billions in military aid provided to Ukraine, gaining exclusive access to Ukraine’s valuable minerals (such as titanium, uranium, and lithium), and reducing Western dependence on China for critical resources. These minerals are essential for aerospace, energy, and technology sectors, and Trump saw their acquisition as a way to bolster U.S. national security and economic competitiveness. Additionally, he sought to advance peace talks to end the Russia-Ukraine war, positioning the U.S. as a key mediator.

Ultimately, Trump secured preferential—but not exclusive—rights to extract Ukraine’s minerals through the United States-Ukraine Reconstruction Investment Fund, as outlined in the agreement. The U.S. will not receive reimbursement for past aid, but future military contributions will count toward the joint fund, designed to support Ukraine’s post-war recovery. Zelenskyy’s commitment to peace negotiations under U.S. leadership aligns with Trump’s goal of resolving the conflict, giving him leverage in discussions with Russia.

These outcomes partially meet Trump’s objectives. The preferential mineral rights strengthen U.S. access to critical resources, but the lack of exclusivity and reimbursement limits the deal’s financial benefits. The peace commitment, however, positions Trump as a central figure in shaping the war’s resolution, potentially enhancing his diplomatic influence.

What did Zelenskyy want?

Global Images Ukraine / Contributor | Getty Images

Zelenskyy sought to sustain U.S. military and economic support without the burden of repaying past aid, which has been critical for Ukraine’s defense against Russia. He also prioritized reconstruction funds to rebuild Ukraine’s war-torn economy and infrastructure. Security guarantees from the U.S. to deter future Russian aggression were a key demand, though controversial, as they risked entangling America in long-term commitments. Additionally, Zelenskyy aimed to retain control over Ukraine’s mineral wealth to safeguard national sovereignty and align with the country’s European Union membership aspirations.

The final deal delivered several of Zelenskyy’s priorities. The reconstruction fund, supported by future U.S. aid, provides a financial lifeline for Ukraine’s recovery without requiring repayment of past assistance. Ukraine retained ownership of its subsoil and decision-making authority over mineral extraction, granting only preferential access to the U.S. However, Zelenskyy conceded on security guarantees, a significant compromise, and agreed to pursue peace talks under Trump’s leadership, which may involve territorial or political concessions to Russia.

Zelenskyy’s outcomes reflect a delicate balance. The reconstruction fund and retained mineral control bolster Ukraine’s economic and sovereign interests, but the absence of security guarantees and pressure to negotiate peace could strain domestic support and challenge Ukraine’s long-term stability.

What does this mean for the future?

Handout / Handout | Getty Images

While Trump didn’t secure all his demands, the deal advances several of his broader strategic goals. By gaining access to Ukraine’s mineral riches, the U.S. undermines China’s dominance over critical elements like lithium and graphite, essential for technology and energy industries. This shift reduces American and European dependence on Chinese supply chains, strengthening Western industrial and tech sectors. Most significantly, the agreement marks a pivotal step toward peace in Europe. Ending the Russia-Ukraine war, which has claimed thousands of lives, is a top priority for Trump, and Zelenskyy’s commitment to U.S.-led peace talks enhances Trump’s leverage in negotiations with Russia. Notably, the deal avoids binding U.S. commitments to Ukraine’s long-term defense, preserving flexibility for future administrations.

The deal’s broader implications align with the vision Glenn outlined in March, when he praised its potential to benefit America, Ukraine, and Europe by securing resources and creating peace. While the final agreement differs from Glenn's hopes, it still achieves key goals he outlined.

Glenn's Show Prep