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.

URGENT: Supreme Court case could redefine religious liberty

Drew Angerer / Staff | Getty Images

The state is effectively silencing professionals who dare speak truths about gender and sexuality, redefining faith-guided speech as illegal.

This week, free speech is once again on the line before the U.S. Supreme Court. At stake is whether Americans still have the right to talk about faith, morality, and truth in their private practice without the government’s permission.

The case comes out of Colorado, where lawmakers in 2019 passed a ban on what they call “conversion therapy.” The law prohibits licensed counselors from trying to change a minor’s gender identity or sexual orientation, including their behaviors or gender expression. The law specifically targets Christian counselors who serve clients attempting to overcome gender dysphoria and not fall prey to the transgender ideology.

The root of this case isn’t about therapy. It’s about erasing a worldview.

The law does include one convenient exception. Counselors are free to “assist” a person who wants to transition genders but not someone who wants to affirm their biological sex. In other words, you can help a child move in one direction — one that is in line with the state’s progressive ideology — but not the other.

Think about that for a moment. The state is saying that a counselor can’t even discuss changing behavior with a client. Isn’t that the whole point of counseling?

One‑sided freedom

Kaley Chiles, a licensed professional counselor in Colorado Springs, has been one of the victims of this blatant attack on the First Amendment. Chiles has dedicated her practice to helping clients dealing with addiction, trauma, sexuality struggles, and gender dysphoria. She’s also a Christian who serves patients seeking guidance rooted in biblical teaching.

Before 2019, she could counsel minors according to her faith. She could talk about biblical morality, identity, and the path to wholeness. When the state outlawed that speech, she stopped. She followed the law — and then she sued.

Her case, Chiles v. Salazar, is now before the Supreme Court. Justices heard oral arguments on Tuesday. The question: Is counseling a form of speech or merely a government‑regulated service?

If the court rules the wrong way, it won’t just silence therapists. It could muzzle pastors, teachers, parents — anyone who believes in truth grounded in something higher than the state.

Censored belief

I believe marriage between a man and a woman is ordained by God. I believe that family — mother, father, child — is central to His design for humanity.

I believe that men and women are created in God’s image, with divine purpose and eternal worth. Gender isn’t an accessory; it’s part of who we are.

I believe the command to “be fruitful and multiply” still stands, that the power to create life is sacred, and that it belongs within marriage between a man and a woman.

And I believe that when we abandon these principles — when we treat sex as recreation, when we dissolve families, when we forget our vows — society fractures.

Are those statements controversial now? Maybe. But if this case goes against Chiles, those statements and others could soon be illegal to say aloud in public.

Faith on trial

In Colorado today, a counselor cannot sit down with a 15‑year‑old who’s struggling with gender identity and say, “You were made in God’s image, and He does not make mistakes.” That is now considered hate speech.

That’s the “freedom” the modern left is offering — freedom to affirm, but never to question. Freedom to comply, but never to dissent. The same movement that claims to champion tolerance now demands silence from anyone who disagrees. The root of this case isn’t about therapy. It’s about erasing a worldview.

The real test

No matter what happens at the Supreme Court, we cannot stop speaking the truth. These beliefs aren’t political slogans. For me, they are the product of years of wrestling, searching, and learning through pain and grace what actually leads to peace. For us, they are the fundamental principles that lead to a flourishing life. We cannot balk at standing for truth.

Maybe that’s why God allows these moments — moments when believers are pushed to the wall. They force us to ask hard questions: What is true? What is worth standing for? What is worth dying for — and living for?

If we answer those questions honestly, we’ll find not just truth, but freedom.

The state doesn’t grant real freedom — and it certainly isn’t defined by Colorado legislators. Real freedom comes from God. And the day we forget that, the First Amendment will mean nothing at all.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Get ready for sparks to fly. For the first time in years, Glenn will come face-to-face with Megyn Kelly — and this time, he’s the one in the hot seat. On October 25, 2025, at Dickies Arena in Fort Worth, Texas, Glenn joins Megyn on her “Megyn Kelly Live Tour” for a no-holds-barred conversation that promises laughs, surprises, and maybe even a few uncomfortable questions.

What will happen when two of America’s sharpest voices collide under the spotlight? Will Glenn finally reveal the major announcement he’s been teasing on the radio for weeks? You’ll have to be there to find out.

This promises to be more than just an interview — it’s a live showdown packed with wit, honesty, and the kind of energy you can only feel if you are in the room. Tickets are selling fast, so don’t miss your chance to see Glenn like you’ve never seen him before.

Get your tickets NOW at www.MegynKelly.com before they’re gone!

What our response to Israel reveals about us

JOSEPH PREZIOSO / Contributor | Getty Images

I have been honored to receive the Defender of Israel Award from Prime Minister Netanyahu.

The Jerusalem Post recently named me one of the strongest Christian voices in support of Israel.

And yet, my support is not blind loyalty. It’s not a rubber stamp for any government or policy. I support Israel because I believe it is my duty — first as a Christian, but even if I weren’t a believer, I would still support her as a man of reason, morality, and common sense.

Because faith isn’t required to understand this: Israel’s existence is not just about one nation’s survival — it is about the survival of Western civilization itself.

It is a lone beacon of shared values in the Middle East. It is a bulwark standing against radical Islam — the same evil that seeks to dismantle our own nation from within.

And my support is not rooted in politics. It is rooted in something simpler and older than politics: a people’s moral and historical right to their homeland, and their right to live in peace.

Israel has that right — and the right to defend herself against those who openly, repeatedly vow her destruction.

Let’s make it personal: if someone told me again and again that they wanted to kill me and my entire family — and then acted on that threat — would I not defend myself? Wouldn’t you? If Hamas were Canada, and we were Israel, and they did to us what Hamas has done to them, there wouldn’t be a single building left standing north of our border. That’s not a question of morality.

That’s just the truth. All people — every people — have a God-given right to protect themselves. And Israel is doing exactly that.

My support for Israel’s right to finish the fight against Hamas comes after eighty years of rejected peace offers and failed two-state solutions. Hamas has never hidden its mission — the eradication of Israel. That’s not a political disagreement.

That’s not a land dispute. That is an annihilationist ideology. And while I do not believe this is America’s war to fight, I do believe — with every fiber of my being — that it is Israel’s right, and moral duty, to defend her people.

Criticism of military tactics is fair. That’s not antisemitism. But denying Israel’s right to exist, or excusing — even celebrating — the barbarity of Hamas? That’s something far darker.

We saw it on October 7th — the face of evil itself. Women and children slaughtered. Babies burned alive. Innocent people raped and dragged through the streets. And now, to see our own fellow citizens march in defense of that evil… that is nothing short of a moral collapse.

If the chants in our streets were, “Hamas, return the hostages — Israel, stop the bombing,” we could have a conversation.

But that’s not what we hear.

What we hear is open sympathy for genocidal hatred. And that is a chasm — not just from decency, but from humanity itself. And here lies the danger: that same hatred is taking root here — in Dearborn, in London, in Paris — not as horror, but as heroism. If we are not vigilant, the enemy Israel faces today will be the enemy the free world faces tomorrow.

This isn’t about politics. It’s about truth. It’s about the courage to call evil by its name and to say “Never again” — and mean it.

And you don’t have to open a Bible to understand this. But if you do — if you are a believer — then this issue cuts even deeper. Because the question becomes: what did God promise, and does He keep His word?

He told Abraham, “I will bless those who bless you, and curse those who curse you.” He promised to make Abraham the father of many nations and to give him “the whole land of Canaan.” And though Abraham had other sons, God reaffirmed that promise through Isaac. And then again through Isaac’s son, Jacob — Israel — saying: “The land I gave to Abraham and Isaac I give to you and to your descendants after you.”

That’s an everlasting promise.

And from those descendants came a child — born in Bethlehem — who claimed to be the Savior of the world. Jesus never rejected His title as “son of David,” the great King of Israel.

He said plainly that He came “for the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” And when He returns, Scripture says He will return as “the Lion of the tribe of Judah.” And where do you think He will go? Back to His homeland — Israel.

Tamir Kalifa / Stringer | Getty Images

And what will He find when He gets there? His brothers — or his brothers’ enemies? Will the roads where He once walked be preserved? Or will they lie in rubble, as Gaza does today? If what He finds looks like the aftermath of October 7th, then tell me — what will be my defense as a Christian?

Some Christians argue that God’s promises to Israel have been transferred exclusively to the Church. I don’t believe that. But even if you do, then ask yourself this: if we’ve inherited the promises, do we not also inherit the land? Can we claim the birthright and then, like Esau, treat it as worthless when the world tries to steal it?

So, when terrorists come to slaughter Israelis simply for living in the land promised to Abraham, will we stand by? Or will we step forward — into the line of fire — and say,

“Take me instead”?

Because this is not just about Israel’s right to exist.

It’s about whether we still know the difference between good and evil.

It’s about whether we still have the courage to stand where God stands.

And if we cannot — if we will not — then maybe the question isn’t whether Israel will survive. Maybe the question is whether we will.

When did Americans start cheering for chaos?

MATHIEU LEWIS-ROLLAND / Contributor | Getty Images

Every time we look away from lawlessness, we tell the next mob it can go a little further.

Chicago, Portland, and other American cities are showing us what happens when the rule of law breaks down. These cities have become openly lawless — and that’s not hyperbole.

When a governor declares she doesn’t believe federal agents about a credible threat to their lives, when Chicago orders its police not to assist federal officers, and when cartels print wanted posters offering bounties for the deaths of U.S. immigration agents, you’re looking at a country flirting with anarchy.

Two dangers face us now: the intimidation of federal officers and the normalization of soldiers as street police. Accept either, and we lose the republic.

This isn’t a matter of partisan politics. The struggle we’re watching now is not between Democrats and Republicans. It’s between good and evil, right and wrong, self‑government and chaos.

Moral erosion

For generations, Americans have inherited a republic based on law, liberty, and moral responsibility. That legacy is now under assault by extremists who openly seek to collapse the system and replace it with something darker.

Antifa, well‑financed by the left, isn’t an isolated fringe any more than Occupy Wall Street was. As with Occupy, big money and global interests are quietly aligned with “anti‑establishment” radicals. The goal is disruption, not reform.

And they’ve learned how to condition us. Twenty‑five years ago, few Americans would have supported drag shows in elementary schools, biological males in women’s sports, forced vaccinations, or government partnerships with mega‑corporations to decide which businesses live or die. Few would have tolerated cartels threatening federal agents or tolerated mobs doxxing political opponents. Yet today, many shrug — or cheer.

How did we get here? What evidence convinced so many people to reverse themselves on fundamental questions of morality, liberty, and law? Those long laboring to disrupt our republic have sought to condition people to believe that the ends justify the means.

Promoting “tolerance” justifies women losing to biological men in sports. “Compassion” justifies harboring illegal immigrants, even violent criminals. Whatever deluded ideals Antifa espouses is supposed to somehow justify targeting federal agents and overturning the rule of law. Our culture has been conditioned for this moment.

The buck stops with us

That’s why the debate over using troops to restore order in American cities matters so much. I’ve never supported soldiers executing civilian law, and I still don’t. But we need to speak honestly about what the Constitution allows and why. The Posse Comitatus Act sharply limits the use of the military for domestic policing. The Insurrection Act, however, exists for rare emergencies — when federal law truly can’t be enforced by ordinary means and when mobs, cartels, or coordinated violence block the courts.

Even then, the Constitution demands limits: a public proclamation ordering offenders to disperse, transparency about the mission, a narrow scope, temporary duration, and judicial oversight.

Soldiers fight wars. Cops enforce laws. We blur that line at our peril.

But we also cannot allow intimidation of federal officers or tolerate local officials who openly obstruct federal enforcement. Both extremes — lawlessness on one side and militarization on the other — endanger the republic.

The only way out is the Constitution itself. Protect civil liberty. Enforce the rule of law. Demand transparency. Reject the temptation to justify any tactic because “our side” is winning. We’ve already seen how fear after 9/11 led to the Patriot Act and years of surveillance.

KAMIL KRZACZYNSKI / Contributor | Getty Images

Two dangers face us now: the intimidation of federal officers and the normalization of soldiers as street police. Accept either, and we lose the republic. The left cannot be allowed to shut down enforcement, and the right cannot be allowed to abandon constitutional restraint.

The real threat to the republic isn’t just the mobs or the cartels. It’s us — citizens who stop caring about truth and constitutional limits. Anything can be justified when fear takes over. Everything collapses when enough people decide “the ends justify the means.”

We must choose differently. Uphold the rule of law. Guard civil liberties. And remember that the only way to preserve a government of, by, and for the people is to act like the people still want it.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.