Could the balance of power tip towards freedom and away from establishment GOP?

Matt Kibbe joined Glenn on radio today to analyze the announcement that several Republicans would be challenging John Boehner for Speaker of the House, most notable Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX).

"I still think the odds are against us because nothing like this has ever been done before," Matt said. "But, remember, just two years ago in January, there was a failed attempt to replace John Boehner that was secretive. They had the votes, and it fell apart on the House floor. This strategy is different. You have a number of members that have publicly come out and said, I will not vote for John Boehner. Louie has come out and said he is willing to be an alternative. Which he didn't last time. No one did."

While Louie's chances for success are up in the air, Matt feels like he is changing the way Washington works simply by issuing the challenge.

"Well, this is a game changer because it shifts the balance of power away from this inside game. The way things used to work. You just didn't go after the leadership because the leadership controlled the money. They control whether or not you get the committees. They basically control whether or not you get to be reelected. These ten or so folks that have come out, they're making it safe for everybody else to be true blue. That's what's different," he said.

Disclaimer: We're sure that people will only think Glenn had Matt onto the show because FreedomWorks is a sponsor. They are. It's not.

Below is a rush transcript of this segment:

Glenn: Louie Gohmert is running for Speaker of the House. Even if it's not Louie, let's make sure John Boehner is not Speaker of the House. But Matt Kibbe is on from Freedom Works.

Matt, how real is this Louie Gohmert run for Speaker of the House tomorrow?

MATT: You know, it's very real. I still think the odds are against us because nothing like this has ever been done before. But, remember, just two years ago in January, there was a failed attempt to replace John Boehner that was secretive. They had the votes, and it fell apart on the House floor.

This strategy is different. You have a number of members that have publicly come out and said, I will not vote for John Boehner. Louie has come out and said he is willing to be an alternative. Which he didn't last time. No one did.

Ted Yoho said he's willing to run against Boehner. So this is a public campaign with a lot of very gutsy guys sticking their heads out knowing Boehner will come after them. But the point is: Grassroots America has an opportunity to weigh in this time.

GLENN: I'm looking at the list of just the people you rate, of the, you know, top 50 people in Congress. Steve Pearce. He voted against Boehner, but hasn't -- do you have any information on like Justin Amash or any of these guys?

MATT: All those guys are on our target list. Right now we have a target list from 40 to 70 guys. Remember, we only need 29 to do this. That is a doable number.

Right now I'm personally aware of nine people that have either come out already or will come out today against Boehner. But we haven't really started. We haven't started targeting the incoming freshmen, many of whom explicitly said they won't vote for John Boehner for Speaker. We haven't targeted these high percenter performers in very Republican districts, where doing the right thing is not only the right thing, but it's the safe thing to do.

GLENN: How many incoming people were there that said --

MATT: Well, there's 50-plus new incoming guys coming in. I think I can count about a dozen that actually ran against Boehner in order to win their seat.

STU: Brat and Palmer said they will vote against Boehner. So you have those two.

Stutzman may be a tenth after the initial nine that I saw come out.

So, you know, Matt, looking at this list, if you have just the people who have come out, the people who voted against Boehner last time, and the people you rate at 100 percent, Freedom Works rates at 100 percent, you're already at 21. And you go to your 95 percent people, you're at 35.

GLENN: Right. And you have 50 percent new people -- fifty new people coming in. You get ten of those --

STU: Yeah, you're in great shape.

GLENN: I mean, what does this mean if this happens, Matt?

MATT: Well, this is a game changer because it shifts the balance of power away from this inside game. The way things used to work. You just didn't go after the leadership because the leadership controlled the money. They control whether or not you get the committees. They basically control whether or not you get to be reelected. These ten or so folks that have come out, they're making it safe for everybody else to be true blue. That's what's different.

But I think it's really up to the listeners right now to make those calls to post on Facebook to make it abundantly clear that this is a must-do thing if we're going to shake Washington up.

STU: Can you explain the process a little bit? Obviously if Louie Gohmert gets 29 votes, he doesn't become Speaker of the House. Why is 29 votes so important? And what happens afterwards?

MATT: The next Speaker will have to get a majority of all of the members voting, and that's likely to be the entire Congress. We're missing one because -- because the Republican that just resigned. But that really doesn't change the numbers.

One of the big misinformation pieces out there is that if you vote against Boehner, you're helping Nancy Pelosi. The only way you help Nancy Pelosi is if you vote for her or if you vote present. She cannot get a majority if Republicans split their vote between Louie Gohmert and John Boehner.

Now, if we get that 29 --

GLENN: So if you're spineless and you don't want to take a stand, you are helping Nancy Pelosi.

MATT: Yes.

GLENN: But even if you vote for Boehner, have the balls to do it, man. Stand up.

MATT: Yeah. You have to put your -- and this is a public vote. And the voters will get to see where you are. But if Boehner doesn't get the majority, it goes back to the Republican conference. And there will be a fight for who the next Speaker will be because Boehner will be done at that point, and it will not just be Gohmert, but you'll see guys like Jim Jordan likely or some other conservatives throw their hat in the ring.

And I just think -- I think you got to shake things up. If you keep doing the same thing over and over again, you'll get the same result.

GLENN: The people who caused the problem won't be the people who fix the problem. And John Boehner is part of the problem. And I'm increasingly concerned about this progressive movement in the Republican party. I mean, I saw the that Mike Huckabee is throwing his hat in the ring or he's at least leaving Fox to, you know, decide -- to study. Of course, he's going to run. And I think he will run, quite honestly, to hurt Ted Cruz. I don't think that's his feeling.

But I'll bet you some of the advice he's getting is motivated by that. If you take in, you put Rick Santorum, Ted Cruz, Mike Huckabee, they start to split that Christian vote. And that allows -- that allows somebody like maybe Rand Paul to be the stronger one. And then the media takes Rand Paul out by doing two things.

By one, saying that he's too radical. And then two, by being passive-aggressive and saying, you know, Rand Paul, we don't really know who he is. He's certainly not in lockstep with those religious people. And we don't even know where he stands on Israel. And that will just kill him. And I think that's what they're doing. They're just chopping us up into little bitty pieces. We have to start standing together and say, enough is enough with this progressive Republican party. Enough is enough.

Call your -- call the congressmen now. I want you to pick up the phone, and I want you to call your congressmen, and you tell them. If you vote for John Boehner, not another dime, not another sticker, not another campaign, not another vote, nothing. Don't you -- you lose my email address. You lose my phone number. I'm done with the G.O.P. if you put John Boehner in one more time. I'm done.

Here's the switchboard number. (202)224-3121. Go on Facebook. Go on Twitter. Call the local office. But you have about 24 -- when does this vote come down?

MATT: Sometime Tuesday. Probably in the late morning.

GLENN: Is this --

STU: Not a lot of time to try to put this together.

GLENN: Give me a percentage of change this is. How big of a deal is this?

MATT: Oh, if we get -- if we get this done, this is -- this is radical change because what it does is it makes the next Speaker, no matter who it is start to pay attention to the American people. John Boehner's biggest problem is his only audience is the lobbyists and the Republican conference that votes for him. He doesn't care about anything else. And this goes back to that see change you're talking about. The new politics goes directly to the American people. It's more democratized. The only way -- the guys that you elect are going to keep their principles, is if we step up and defend them and force them to be as good as they can be.

GLENN: Okay. This is it. (202)224-3121. Thanks, Matt. Appreciate it. Matt Kibbe from Freedom Works.

Front page image courtesy of the AP.

Presidential debate recap: The good, the bad and the ugly

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

The second presidential debate was many things--some good, some bad, but one thing was made clear: this election is far from over.

If you were watching the debate with Glenn during the BlazeTV exclusive debate coverage, then you already know how the debate went: Kamala lied through her teeth and Trump faced a three-pronged attack from Harris and the two ABC moderators. This was not the debate performance we were hoping for, but it could have gone far worse. If you didn't get the chance to watch the debate or can't bring yourself to watch it again and are looking for a recap, we got you covered. Here are the good, the bad, and the ugly from the second presidential debate:

The Good

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Let's start with what went well.

While there was certainly room for improvement, Trump's performance wasn't terrible, especially compared to his performance in other debates. He showed restraint, kept himself from being too brash, and maintained the name-calling to a minimum. In comparison, Kamala Harris was struggling to maintain her composure. Harris was visibly emotional and continued to make obnoxious facial expressions, which included several infuriating eye-rolls and patronizing smirks.

The Bad

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Despite all that, the debate could have gone much better...

While Trump was able to keep his cool during the debate, he was not able to stay on track. Kamala kept making inflammatory comments meant to derail Trump, and every time, he took the bait. Trump spent far too long defending his career and other extraneous issues instead of discussing issues relevant to the American people and revealing Kamala's failures as Vice President.

Trump's biggest blunder during the debate was his failure to prevent Kamala from leaving that debate looking like a credible option as president. Kamala was fairly unknown to the American people and had remained that way on purpose, giving only one interview after Biden stepped down from the campaign. This is because every time Kamala opens her mouth, she typically makes a fool of herself. Trump needed to give Kamala more time to stick her foot in her mouth and to press Kamala on the Biden administration's failures over the past four years. Instead, he took her bait and let her run down the clock, and by the end of the debate, she left looking far more competent than she actually is.

The Ugly

If anything, the debate reminded us that this election is far from over, and it's more important now than ever for Trump to win.

The most noteworthy occurrence of the debate was the blatantly obvious bias of the ABC debate moderators against Trump. Many people have described the debate as a "three vs. one dogpile," with the moderators actively participating in debating Trump. If you didn't believe that the media was in the back pocket of the Democrats before, it's hard to deny it now. Kamala stood on stage and lied repeatedly with impunity knowing that the moderators and the mainstream media at large would cover for her.

The stakes have never been higher. With so many forces arrayed against Trump, it's clear to see that the Left cannot afford to let Trump win this November. The shape of America as we know it is on the line. Kamala represents the final push by the globalist movement to take root and assimilate America into the growing global hivemind.

The election is far from over. This is our sign to stand up and fight for our nation and our values and save America.

Glenn: Illegal aliens could swing the 2024 election, and it spells trouble for Trump

ELIZABETH RUIZ / Stringer | Getty Images

Either Congress must pass the SAVE Act, or states must protect the integrity of their elections — especially the seven swing states that could shift the outcome of 2024 by a hair’s breadth.

Progressives rely on three main talking points about illegal aliens voting in our elections.

The first is one of cynical acceptance. They admit that illegal immigrants are already voting but argue that there is nothing we can do to stop it, suggesting that it’s just another factor we should expect in future elections. This position shows no respect for our electoral system or the rule of law and doesn’t warrant further attention.

This election will be very similar to 2020. It’s like football — a game of inches.

The second talking point targets the right. Progressives question why Republicans care, asking why they assume illegal immigrants voting would only benefit the other side. They suggest that some of these voters might also support the GOP.

On this point, the data says otherwise.

Across the board, immigrants vote overwhelmingly for Democrats, regardless of what state they’re in. The vast majority of migrants are coming up from South America, a region that is undergoing a current “left-wing” experiment by voting for far-left candidates practically across the board. Ninety-two percent of South America’s population favors the radical left, and they’re pouring over our border in record numbers — and, according to the data, they’re not changing their voting habits.

The third main talking point concedes that illegal immigrants are voting but not enough to make a significant dent in our elections — that their effect is minuscule.

That isn’t what the numbers show either.

Texas just audited its voter rolls and had to remove more than 1 million ineligible voters. The SAVE Act would mandate all states conduct such audits, but the left in Congress is currently trying to stop its passage. Dare I say that the left's pushback is because illegal immigration actually plays in Democrats' favor on Election Day?

Out of the 6,500 noncitizens removed from the voter rolls, nearly 2,000 had prior voting history, proving that illegal aliens are voting. But do the numbers matter, or are they “minuscule,” as the left claims? Let’s examine whether these illegal voting trends can make a dent in the states that matter the most on Election Day.

The corporate legacy media agree that Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin will swing the election in November. By Election Day, an estimated 8 million illegal aliens will be living in the United States. Can these 8 million illegal immigrants change the course of the 2024 election? Let’s look at the election data from each of these seven swing states:

These are the numbers being sold to us as “insignificant” and “not enough to make a difference.” Arizona and Georgia were won in 2020 by a razor-thin margin of approximately 10,000 votes, and they have the most illegal immigrants — besides North Carolina — of all the swing states.

This election will be very similar to 2020. It’s like football — a game of inches. The progressives are importing an electorate to extend their ground by feet, yards, and often miles.

This is why Democrats in Congress oppose the SAVE Act, why the Justice Department has ignored cases of illegal voting in the past, and why the corporate left-wing media is gaslighting the entire country on its significance. This is a power play, and the entire Western world is under the same assault.

If things stay the status quo, these numbers prove the very real possibility of an election swing by illegal immigrants, and it will not favor our side of the aisle. Congress must pass the SAVE Act. If it fails, states must step up to protect the integrity of their elections — especially the seven swing states that could shift the outcome of 2024 by a hair’s breadth.

Editor's Note: This article was originally published on TheBlaze.com.

Hunter pleads GUILTY, but did he get a pass on these 3 GLARING crimes?

Anna Moneymaker / Staff | Getty Images

Last week, Hunter Biden made the shocking decision to suddenly plead guilty to all nine charges of tax-related crimes after claiming innocence since 2018.

Hunter first tried an "Alford plead" in which a defendant maintains their innocence while accepting the sentencing, typically due to the overwhelming evidence against them. Hunter's Alford plead was not accepted after the prosecutors objected to the suggestion, and Hunter quickly pleaded guilty.

Glenn could not believe just how disrespectful this situation was to the justice system and the American people. After years of lying about his innocence, which only served to deepen the divide in our country, Hunter decided to change his tune at the last minute and admit his guilt. Moreover, many expect Joe Biden will swoop in after the election and bail his son out with a presidential pardon.

This isn't the first time Hunter's crimes have turned out to be more than just a "right-wing conspiracy theory," and, odds are, it won't be the last. Here are three crimes Hunter may or may not be guilty of:

Gun charges: Found guilty

This June, Hunter Biden was found guilty of three federal gun charges, which could possibly land him up to 25 years in prison. Hunter purchased a revolver in 2018 while addicted to crack, and lied to the gun dealer about his addiction. While Hunter could face up to 25 years in prison, it's unlikely to be the case as first-time offenders rarely receive the maximum sentence. That's assuming Joe even lets it go that far.

Tax evasion: Plead guilty

Last week, Hunter changed his plea to "guilty" after years of pleading innocent to federal tax evasion charges. Since 2018, Delaware attorneys have been working on Hunter's case, and just before the trial was set to begin, Hunter changed his plea. According to the investigation, Hunter owed upwards of $1.4 million in federal taxes that he avoided by writing them off as fraudulent business deductions. Instead, Hunter spent this money on strippers, escorts, luxury cars, hotels, and, undoubtedly, crack.

Joe's involvement with Hunter's foreign dealings: Yet to be proven

Despite repeated claims against it, there is ample evidence supporting the theory Joe Biden was aware of Hunter's business dealings and even had a hand in them. This includes testimony from Devon Archer, one of Hunter's business partners, confirming Joe joined several business calls. Despite the mounting evidence Joe Biden was involved in Hunter's overseas business dealings and was using his influence to Hunter's benefit, the Bidens still maintain their innocence.

Why do we know so much about the Georgia shooter but NOTHING about Trump's shooter?

Jessica McGowan / Stringer | Getty Images

It's only been a few days since the horrific shooting at the Apalachee High School in Winder, Georgia, and the shooter, Colt Gray, and his father, Colin Gray, have already made their first court appearance. Over the last few days, more and more information has come out about the shooter and his family, including details of Colt's troubled childhood and history of mental health issues. The FBI said Colton had been on their radar.

This situation has Glenn fired up, asking, "Why do we have an FBI?" It seems like every time there is a mass shooting, the FBI unhelpfully admits the shooter was "on the radar," but what good does that do? While it is great we know everything about the Georgia shooter, including what he got for Christmas, why do we still know next to NOTHING about Trump's would-be assassin? Here are three things we know about the Georgia shooter that we stilldon't know about the Trump shooter:

Digital footprint

Just a few days after the shooting, authorities have already released many details of the Georgia shooter, Colt Gray's, digital footprint. This includes extensive conversations and photographs revolving around school shootings that were pulled from Gray's Discord account, a digital messaging platform.

Compared to this, the FBI claims Thomas Crooks, the shooter who almost assassinated Donald Trump, had little to no digital footprint, and outside of an ominous message sent by Crooks on Steam (an online video game platform), we know nothing about his online activities. Doesn't it seem strange that Crooks, a young adult in 2024 who owned a cell phone and a laptop left behind no digital trail of any relevance to his crime?

Home life

The FBI has painted a vivid image of what Colt Gray's home life was like, including his troubling relationship with his parents. They released information about his parents' tumultuous divorce, being evicted from his home, several interactions with law enforcement and CPS, and abuse. Investigators also found written documents of Colt's related to other school shootings, suggesting he had been thinking of this for some time before committing the atrocity.

In contrast, we still know next to nothing about Crooks's home life.

How he got the weapon

Spencer Platt / Staff | Getty Images

Colt Gray was gifted the rifle he used in the shooting from his father for Christmas last year. We also know Colt's father is an avid hunter and would take Colt on hunting trips. In 2023, Colt was the subject of an investigation regarding a threat he made online to shoot up a school. During the interview, Colt stated he did not make the threat. Moreover, his father admitted to owning several firearms, but said Colt was not allowed full access to them. The investigation was later closed after the accusations could not be sustained.

In comparison, all we know is that Crooks stole his father's rifle and did not inform his parents of any part of his plan. We have no clue how Crooks acquired the rest of his equipment, which included nearly a hundred extra rounds of ammunition, a bullet-proof vest, and several homemade bombs. How did Crooks manage to acquire all of his equipment without the FBI taking notice?

It feels like the FBI is either incompetent or hiding important information from the American people. Or both.