Blog
LatestArticlesVideos
Radio
LivePodcastSerialsStations
TV
Podcasts
The Glenn Beck ProgramThe Glenn Beck PodcastThe Beck Story
Fine Art
Real Estate
More
AboutCharityBooksSponsorsShopContact
SEARCH
Live Radio

©2024 MERCURY RADIO ARTS.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

TERMS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY

Live

Glenn's Show Prep

Why is Louie Gohmert challenging Boehner for Speaker of the House?

January 05, 2015
Wilson

Writer

Rep. Louis Gohmert (R-TX) announced Sunday that he planned to challenge House Speaker John Boehner for the top spot in Congress. Hot on the heels of his announcement, Louie joined Glenn on radio to talk about why he was running and the risks he faces if he loses.

Louie explained that there were many representatives telling their constituents that they had to vote for Boehner because there was no other option.

"I was persuaded. I'll be the sacrificial lamb. I will get out there. But it's not just me. There are others. But people have got a choice now. And those people that have been telling their constituents in the past, 'Well, gee, I would not have voted for Boehner, but nobody ran against him.' Well, now somebody is. And if we get 29 votes or more, then there will be a second ballot. And we will have a chance to change our leadership," Louie explained.

Louie explained he didn't run back in November because Boehner said all the right things after the election.

"Our speaker went out and said, 'We're gonna fight tooth and nail against the president's illegal amnesty.' He said all the right things. And you know, you want to believe somebody wouldn't go out that boldly if they didn't intend to follow that," Louie said.

Louie pointed to the CROmnibus as a major factor in his decision to run as well.

"I want you to call your congressman and you hold their feet to the fire. Do not vote for John Boehner," Glenn said. "It is time. You have a chance. I need to you hear me carefully. You think that you have lost. You feel beaten up. You feel like you can't make a difference. You have a chance. There are these sign posts that come up from time to time. This is one of them. Let's nail this one. Call 202-224-3121. Talk to your Congressman. Tell them to vote for Louie Gohmert. More importantly, tell them that if they vote for John Boehner, you're done with them. 202-224-3121."

Below is a rough transcript of this segment:

GLENN: Welcome to the program. Louie Gohmert, Congressman who is now running for Speaker of the House, against John Boehner. How are you doing, sir?

GOHMERT: As far as I know, I'm okay, Glenn, thank you.

GLENN: I would -- I know you didn't take this on lightly because we've asked you, you know, if you would do this in the past. And you have said no.

GOHMERT: Well, it was other members saying, Louie, you are the only one that can really do this and get the outside groups going. And I -- I was saying, guys, you've heard me chastised our members. I just -- you know, you saw the results of the RSC race and they said, this is a different race. We've got to get 29-plus, and anyway, I was persuaded, okay. I'll be the sacrificial lamb. I will get out there and -- but it's not just me. There are others. But people have got a choice now. And those people that have been faith telling their constituents in the past, well, gee, I would not have voted for Boehner, but nobody ran against him. Well, now somebody is. And if we get 29 votes or more, then there will be a second ballot. And we will have a chance to change our leadership. But Glenn, you know, some people have said, well, why didn't somebody run, why didn't you run back in November? Well, we had just had a massive election. And our speaker went out and said, we're gonna fight tooth and nail against the president's illegal amnesty. He said all the right things. And you know, you want to believe somebody wouldn't go out that boldly if they didn't intend to follow that. But now -- oh, and we're -- we promised we would fight against ObamaCare. Glenn, we just funded ObamaCare with the navigators, more IRS, all of that. We've already funded that through this whole year. That was in the CROmnibus. No wonder Obama was willing to make our calls and get people lobbied up to vote for a Boehner deal. It was a bad deal. And then of course the promise, oh, yeah, but we kept the budget for DHS, Homeland Security, that is, held that out for leverage. That's the one hostage that the president wouldn't mind us shooting. Can you -- I don't see how this plays out. Our speaker says, okay, Mr. President, if you don't stop your illegal amnesty, we're not going to fund the border patrol and the border will be wide open. Okay. I mean, that's -- we gave away the leverage of everything the president cares about in the CROmnibus and that's why so many Republicans simply could not vote for it.

GLENN: Okay. So tell me how this process works. Because do you even have a shot, is there a chance that somebody worse than John Boehner -- Nancy Pelosi, I mean, tell me how this works.

GOHMERT: Thank you for asking that. That is a piece of misinformation that people have used saying, well, anybody that does not vote for Boehner is going to give the gavel to Nancy Pelosi. Glenn, that cannot happen unless 59 Republicans vote present. Only if 59 Republicans vote present can Nancy Pelosi have a chance at all. So anybody that votes present, they're helping Boehner and Pelosi by lowering the number that you have to get to get a majority. But the rules of the house, going back to Thomas Jefferson's rules of the house, they are very clear. A candidate must get a majority of all of those on the House floor voting for a person. It doesn't have to be a member of Congress, but it does need to be an American citizen and adult. Anybody is eligible that is. And so you don't have to be nominated for your vote to count. But as long as the Republican members vote for a person, even if it's not me or Ted Yo-ho, some are saying they'd like Dan Webster. I said I could vote for Dan. But as long as they vote for a person, then Pelosi can never become Speaker because she's got 188 votes max. She can't overcome the necessary 218 to win.

GLENN: Here's the scary thing. I know your system well enough to know -- I mean, you're toast. If you don't win, you're toast. And that's exactly what they're going to be saying. That's what Boehner is saying to everybody right now. Listen, you don't vote for me. You don't play ball with me now. You're not getting on any committee. You're not going to --

GOHMERT: Yes.

GLENN: You're not going to be heard from again. How do you make sure that those who tend to lack essentials in their underpants actually step to the plate here and do the right thing?

GOHMERT: Well, I think you're gonna have a lot of members that hear from their constituents that, hey, we're the ones that elected you, not John Boehner. But I tell you what, Glenn, there is some real intimidation going on. Apparently this morning there was a statement released by Boehner's people saying David Brat was going to vote for him. And I think probably intimidation involves, we're going to get families out there of people who may not vote for us but when we see in print that we're counting on them voting for us, they'll be afraid not to vote for Boehner and unfortunately for Boehner, the David Brat had a piece out this morning saying he's not voting for Boehner. So I don't think the speaker can actually trust his whip count. But Glenn, you and I have talked on the air, off the air enough. We both have our accountability to the same place. And it's not to the Speaker of the House. I know a few years ago, one of our members in a very contested situation said to the speaker, hey, you're our shepherd. We're your sheep. Tell us what we should do. I said, look, I've got two shepherds. One is my heavenly shepard herd and the other is my 700,000 constituents in east Texas and you're not in neither one of those categories. We can look to leadership for guidance, but our ultimate responsibility is to on Maker and those who sent us here.

GLENN: tell me --

GOHMERT: There's a lot at stake if we don't do this. One more thing. They're using intimidation saying 'gee, you're going to cost us the 2016 election by creating controversy.' No, the controversy is there. And in fact he was there last night weighing -- figuring through his numbers the polling data, that they just bid, 25 to 33% of Republicans and independents that voted Republican in 2014 are ready to walk away.

GLENN: Already have. Let me tell you something. I am so sick and tired -- who was it that said, you or Ted Cruz, somebody said, it's always the next time.

GOHMERT: Yeah.

GLENN: It's always next time.

GOHMERT: That's all we hear.

GLENN: We can't do it this time because of the next election. But as soon as that election is over, we'll do it the next time. I've had enough. I've had enough. And I think America has had enough.

GOHMERT: We've been hearing that for nine years.

GLENN: Done House Speaker Boehner was elected majority leader in early 2008. And he said, look, this is perfect. This is only about 10 or 11 months. You vote for me now. You'll find out if I'm the leader you need by November. And on election night in November, we lost the majority. That was -- I'm sorry. That wasn't -- that was '06. And then November of '06 the night of the election, while most of us were sick to our stomachs to think of all the different people, Democrats that would be holding gavels and controlling Congress, one person wasn't thinking about that and that was our current Speaker calling and saying, hey, this wasn't a full two years. You got to give me a full two-year term. And 2008 didn't go all that well for us either. And the only reason they won the majority in 2010 was not because of our leadership. It was because the Democrats made people so mad it's in spite of the leadership. Let me give the number. Call the switchboard. I want you to call your congressman and you hold their feet to the fire. Do not vote for John Boehner. It is time -- you have a chance. I need to you hear me carefully. You think that you have lost. You feel beaten up. You feel like you can't make a difference. You have a chance. There are these sign posts that come up from time to time. This is one of them. Let's nail this one. Call 202-224-3121. Talk to your Congressman. Tell them to vote for Louie Gohmert. More importantly, tell them that if they vote for John Boehner, you're done with them. 202-224-3121. Louie, you're Speaker of the House. Tell me how things change. What do you do?

GOHMERT: We start using, as was promised, every weapon at our disposal to stop the illegal and unconstitutional amnesty. We secure the border. We make it clear to the president, yes, we know, we need immigration reform, but we're not changing anything until you secure the border and here's the money to do it and you're not -- we're defunding your czars, we're defunding everything that means anything to you that America doesn't need. We're defunding all of these things unless you secure the border. And until you secure the border, as confirmed by unanimous border states, we're not doing immigration reform. Then we decentralize the Speaker's power. That's a problem. It's a monopoly. You only getting one vote on the steering committee, not four or five. We get in high gear and we finish all investigations. We hold groups and agencies and departments accountable for wrongdoing. We throw out the current tax code. I want a flat tax. Someone a fair tax, a sales tax. Let's have that debate. We throw out the code. And then we go with whichever wins, fair tax or flat tax. We end the automatic increase every stinking year in every federal department and agency's budget. Nobody else gets that. The government shouldn't either. We stop the government spying on American people. We create some reform in our committee structure. We kind of have a public assistance committee or subcommittee that has every single piece of welfare in it. That's how we've been beat for 40 years, is because if you say, wait, I don't think we ought to fund this program. It's duplicitous. There's too many like it. It's weighs. Then they say you hate children or women or veterans. No, we don't, we love them all but we don't need 87 agencies doing the same thing. We create an energy policy that does not provide any subsidies for any energy. Let's let the market tell us which energy to use. We have competitive groups scoring our bills. We end the CBO monopoly of scores. We get screwed by them virtually every time. We force removal of at least two-thirds of the regulations. Reagan forced Congress to do it and he had a democratic Congress. And this is a biggie. Every two years instead of having -- before we have a speaker's election, the party in power has a vote of confidence or no confidence. And if the speaker get as no confidence vote, he can't run and we get a new speaker. That's the way it ought to be, so that we don't have a dictatorship in Congress.

GLENN: Well, I think those sound like a good start. Louie, I thank you for your service. I thank you for your loyalty to your constituents and to God and the Constitution. I Washington you the best of luck. Thank you so much, Louie.

GOHMERT: Glenn, thanks so much for your friendship.

Front page image courtesy of the AP.

The critical difference: Rights from the Creator, not the state

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 America’s next generation trading freedom for equity?

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?

Do you think the Gen Z support for Trump is an opportunity for conservatives to win them over with anti-establishment reforms that preserve liberty?

Americans expose Supreme Court’s flag ruling as a failed relic

Anna Moneymaker / Staff | Getty Images

In a nation where the Stars and Stripes symbolize the blood-soaked sacrifices of our heroes, President Trump's executive order to crack down on flag desecration amid violent protests has ignited fierce debate. But in a recent poll, Glenn asked the tough question: Can Trump protect the Flag without TRAMPLING free speech? Glenn asked, and you answered—thousands weighed in on this pressing clash between free speech and sacred symbols.

The results paint a picture of resounding distrust toward institutional leniency. A staggering 85% of respondents support banning the burning of American flags when it incites violence or disturbs the peace, a bold rejection of the chaos we've seen from George Floyd riots to pro-Palestinian torchings. Meanwhile, 90% insist that protections for burning other flags—like Pride or foreign banners—should not be treated the same as Old Glory under the First Amendment, exposing the hypocrisy in equating our nation's emblem with fleeting symbols. And 82% believe the Supreme Court's Texas v. Johnson ruling, shielding flag burning as "symbolic speech," should not stand without revision—can the official story survive such resounding doubt from everyday Americans weary of government inaction?

Your verdict sends a thunderous message: In this divided era, the flag demands defense against those who exploit freedoms to sow disorder, without trampling the liberties it represents. It's a catastrophic failure of the establishment to ignore this groundswell.

Want to make your voice heard? Check out more polls HERE.

Labor Day EXPOSED: The Marxist roots you weren’t told about

JOSEPH PREZIOSO / Contributor | Getty Images

During your time off this holiday, remember the man who started it: Peter J. McGuire, a racist Marxist who co-founded America’s first socialist party.

Labor Day didn’t begin as a noble tribute to American workers. It began as a negotiation with ideological terrorists.

In the late 1800s, factory and mine conditions were brutal. Workers endured 12-to-15-hour days, often seven days a week, in filthy, dangerous environments. Wages were low, injuries went uncompensated, and benefits didn’t exist. Out of desperation, Americans turned to labor unions. Basic protections had to be fought for because none were guaranteed.

Labor Day wasn’t born out of gratitude. It was a political payoff to Marxist radicals who set trains ablaze and threatened national stability.

That era marked a seismic shift — much like today. The Industrial Revolution, like our current digital and political upheaval, left millions behind. And wherever people get left behind, Marxists see an opening.

A revolutionary wedge

This was Marxism’s moment.

Economic suffering created fertile ground for revolutionary agitation. Marxists, socialists, and anarchists stepped in to stoke class resentment. Their goal was to turn the downtrodden into a revolutionary class, tear down the existing system, and redistribute wealth by force.

Among the most influential agitators was Peter J. McGuire, a devout Irish Marxist from New York. In 1874, he co-founded the Social Democratic Workingmens Party of North America, the first Marxist political party in the United States. He was also a vice president of the American Federation of Labor, which would become the most powerful union in America.

McGuire’s mission wasn’t hidden. He wanted to transform the U.S. into a socialist nation through labor unions.

That mission soon found a useful symbol.

In the 1880s, labor leaders in Toronto invited McGuire to attend their annual labor festival. Inspired, he returned to New York and launched a similar parade on Sept. 5 — chosen because it fell halfway between Independence Day and Thanksgiving.

The first parade drew over 30,000 marchers who skipped work to hear speeches about eight-hour workdays and the alleged promise of Marxism. The parade caught on across the country.

Negotiating with radicals

By 1894, Labor Day had been adopted by 30 states. But the federal government had yet to make it a national holiday. A major strike changed everything.

In Pullman, Illinois, home of the Pullman railroad car company, tensions exploded. The economy tanked. George Pullman laid off hundreds of workers and slashed wages for those who remained — yet refused to lower the rent on company-owned homes.

That injustice opened the door for Marxist agitators to mobilize.

Sympathetic railroad workers joined the strike. Riots broke out. Hundreds of railcars were torched. Mail service was disrupted. The nation’s rail system ground to a halt.

President Grover Cleveland — under pressure in a midterm election year — panicked. He sent 12,000 federal troops to Chicago. Two strikers were killed in the resulting clashes.

With the crisis spiraling and Democrats desperate to avoid political fallout, Cleveland struck a deal. Within six days of breaking the strike, Congress rushed through legislation making Labor Day a federal holiday.

It was the first of many concessions Democrats would make to organized labor in exchange for political power.

What we really celebrated

Labor Day wasn’t born out of gratitude. It was a political payoff to Marxist radicals who set trains ablaze and threatened national stability.

Kean Collection / Staff | Getty Images

What we celebrated was a Canadian idea, brought to America by the founder of the American Socialist Party, endorsed by racially exclusionary unions, and made law by a president and Congress eager to save face.

It was the first of many bones thrown by the Democratic Party to union power brokers. And it marked the beginning of a long, costly compromise with ideologues who wanted to dismantle the American way of life — from the inside out.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.