Blog
LatestArticlesVideos
Radio
LivePodcastSerialsStations
TV
Podcast
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.

Washington Post EXPOSED: How Watergate editors almost published a fake Pulitzer Prize-winning story

Episode 6 of Glenn’s new history podcast series The Beck Story releases this Saturday.

This latest installment explores the history of Left-wing bias in mainstream media. Like every episode of this series, episode 6 is jam-packed with historical detail, but you can’t squeeze in every story, so some inevitably get cut from the final version. Part of this episode involves the late Ben Bradlee, who was the legendary editor of the Washington Post. Bradlee is legendary mostly because of the Watergate investigation that was conducted on his watch by two young reporters named Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein. Bradlee, Woodward, and Bernstein became celebrities after the release of the book and movie based on their investigation called All the President’s Men.

But there is another true story about the Washington Post that you probably won’t see any time soon at a theater near you.

In 1980, Washington Post editor Ben Bradlee wanted to expand the Post’s readership in the black community. The paper made an effort to hire more minority journalists, like Janet Cooke, a black female reporter from Ohio. Cooke was an aggressive reporter and a good writer. She was a fast-rising star on a staff already full of stars. The Post had a very competitive environment and Cooke desperately wanted to win a Pulitzer Prize.

Readers were hooked. And outraged.

When Cooke was asked to work on a story about the D.C. area’s growing heroin problem, she saw her chance to win that Pulitzer. As she interviewed people in black neighborhoods that were hardest hit by the heroin epidemic, she was appalled to learn that even some children were heroin addicts. When she learned about an eight-year-old heroin addict named Jimmy, she knew she had her hook. His heartbreaking story would surely be her ticket to a Pulitzer.

Cooke wrote her feature story, titling it, “Jimmy’s World.” It blew away her editors at the Post, including Bob Woodward, who by then was Assistant Managing Editor. “Jimmy’s World” would be a front-page story:

'Jimmy is 8 years old and a third-generation heroin addict,' Cooke’s story began, 'a precocious little boy with sandy hair, velvety brown eyes and needle marks freckling the baby-smooth skin of his thin brown arms. He nestles in a large, beige reclining chair in the living room of his comfortably furnished home in Southeast Washington. There is an almost cherubic expression on his small, round face as he talks about life – clothes, money, the Baltimore Orioles and heroin. He has been an addict since the age of 5.'

Readers were hooked. And outraged. The mayor’s office instructed the police to immediately search for Jimmy and get him medical treatment. But no one was able to locate Jimmy. Cooke wasn’t surprised. She told her editors at the Post that she had only been able to interview Jimmy and his mother by promising them anonymity. She also revealed that the mother’s boyfriend had threatened Cooke’s life if the police discovered Jimmy’s whereabouts.

A few months later, Cooke’s hard work paid off and her dream came true – her story was awarded the Pulitzer Prize for feature writing. Cooke had to submit some autobiographical information to the Prize committee, but there was a slight snag. The committee contacted the Post when they couldn’t verify that Cooke had graduated magna cum laude from Vassar College. Turns out she only attended Vassar her freshman year. She actually graduated from the University of Toledo with a B.A. degree, not with a master’s degree as she told the Pulitzer committee.

Cooke’s editors summoned her for an explanation. Unfortunately for Cooke and the Washington Post, her resume flubs were the least of her lies. After hours of grilling, Cooke finally confessed that “Jimmy’s World” was entirely made up. Jimmy did not exist.

The Pulitzer committee withdrew its prize and Cooke resigned in shame. The Washington Post, the paper that uncovered Watergate – the biggest political scandal in American history – failed to even vet Cooke’s resume. Then it published a front-page, Pulitzer Prize-winning feature story that was 100 percent made up.

Remarkably, neither Ben Bradlee nor Bob Woodward resigned over the incident. It was a different time, but also, the halo of All the President’s Men probably saved them.

Don’t miss the first five episodes of The Beck Story, which are available now. And look for Episode 6 this Saturday, wherever you get your podcasts.


5 Democrats who have endorsed Kamala (and two who haven't)

Zach Gibson / Stringer, Brandon Bell / Staff | Getty Images

With Biden removed from the 2024 election and only a month to find a replacement before the DNC, Democrats continue to fall in line and back Vice President Kamala Harris to headline the party's ticket. Her proximity and familiarity with the Biden campaign along with an endorsement from Biden sets Harris up to step into Biden's shoes and preserve the momentum from his campaign.

Glenn doesn't think Kamala Harris is likely to survive as the assumed Democratic nominee, and once the DNC starts, anything could happen. Plenty of powerful and important Democrats have rallied around Harris over the last few days, but there have been some crucial exemptions. Here are five democrats that have thrown their name behind Harris, and two SHOCKING names that didn't...

Sen. Dick Durbin: ENDORSED

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

High-ranking Senate Democrat Dick Durbin officially put in his support for Harris in a statement that came out the day after Biden stepped down: “I’m proud to endorse my former Senate colleague and good friend, Vice President Kamala Harris . . . our nation needs to continue moving forward with unity and not MAGA chaos. Vice President Harris was a critical partner in building the Biden record over the past four years . . . Count me in with Kamala Harris for President.”

Michigan Gov. Whitmer: ENDORSED

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

The Monday after Biden stepped down from the presidential VP hopeful, Gretchen Whitmer released the following statement on X: “Today, I am fired up to endorse Kamala Harris for president of the United States [...] In Vice President Harris, Michigan voters have a presidential candidate they can count on to focus on lowering their costs, restoring their freedoms, bringing jobs and supply chains back home from overseas, and building an economy that works for working people.”

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: ENDORSED

Drew Angerer / Staff | Getty Images

Mere hours after Joe Biden made his announcement, AOC hopped on X and made the following post showing her support: "Kamala Harris will be the next President of the United States. I pledge my full support to ensure her victory in November. Now more than ever, it is crucial that our party and country swiftly unite to defeat Donald Trump and the threat to American democracy. Let’s get to work."

Rep. Nancy Pelosi: ENDORSED

Anna Moneymaker / Staff | Getty Images

Former Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who is arguably one of the most influential democrats, backed Harris's campaign with the following statement given the day after Biden's decision: “I have full confidence she will lead us to victory in November . . . My enthusiastic support for Kamala Harris for President is official, personal, and political.”

Sen. Elizabeth Warren: ENDORSED

Drew Angerer / Stringer | Getty Images

Massasschesets Senator Elizabeth Warren was quick to endorse Kamala, releasing the following statement shortly after Harris placed her presidential bid: "I endorse Kamala Harris for President. She is a proven fighter who has been a national leader in safeguarding consumers and protecting access to abortion. As a former prosecutor, she can press a forceful case against allowing Donald Trump to regain the White House. We have many talented people in our party, but Vice President Harris is the person who was chosen by the voters to succeed Joe Biden if needed. She can unite our party, take on Donald Trump, and win in November."

Former President Barack Obama: DID NOT ENDORSE

Spencer Platt / Staff | Getty Images

Former President Barack Obama wasted no time releasing the following statement which glaringly omits any support for Harris or any other candidate. Instead, he suggests someone will be chosen at the DNC in August: "We will be navigating uncharted waters in the days ahead. But I have extraordinary confidence that the leaders of our party will be able to create a process from which an outstanding nominee emerges. I believe that Joe Biden's vision of a generous, prosperous, and united America that provides opportunity for everyone will be on full display at the Democratic Convention in August. And I expect that every single one of us are prepared to carry that message of hope and progress forward into November and beyond."

Prominent Democratic Donor John Morgan: DID NOT ENDORSE

AP Photo/John Raoux

Prominent and wealthy Florida lawyer and democrat donor John Morgan was clearly very pessimistic about Kamala's odds aginst Trump when he gave the following statement: “You have to be enthusiastic or hoping for a political appointment to be asking friends for money. I am neither. It’s others turn now . . . The donors holding the 90 million can release those funds in the morning. It’s all yours. You can keep my million. And good luck . . . [Harris] would not be my first choice, but it’s a done deal.”

How did Trump's would-be assassin get past Secret Service?

PATRICK T. FALLON / Contributor | Getty Images

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

Former President Donald Trump on Saturday was targeted in an assassination attempt during a campaign rally in Pennsylvania. It occurred just after 6:10 p.m. while Trump was delivering his speech.

Here are the details of the “official” story. The shooter was Thomas Matthew Crooks. He was 20 years old from Bethel Park, Pennsylvania. He used an AR-15 rifle and managed to reach the rooftop of a nearby building unnoticed. The Secret Service's counter-response team responded swiftly, according to "the facts," killing Crooks and preventing further harm.

Did it though? That’s what the official story says, so far, but calling this a mere lapse in security by Secret Service doesn't add up. There are some glaring questions that need to be answered.

If Trump had been killed on Saturday, we would be in a civil war today. We would have seen for the first time the president's brains splattered on live television, and because of the details of this, I have a hard time thinking it wouldn't have been viewed as JFK 2.0.

How does someone sneak a rifle onto the rally grounds? How does someone even know that that building is there? How is it that Thomas Matthew Crooks was acting so weird and pacing in front of the metal detectors, and no one seemed to notice? People tried to follow him, but, oops, he got away.

How could the kid possibly even think that the highest ground at the venue wouldn't be watched? If I were Crooks, my first guess would be, "That’s the one place I shouldn't crawl up to with a rifle because there's most definitely going to be Secret Service there." Why wasn't anyone there? Why wasn't anyone watching it? Nobody except the shooter decided that the highest ground with the best view of the rally would be the greatest vulnerability to Trump’s safety.

Moreover, a handy ladder just happened to be there. Are we supposed to believe that nobody in the Secret Service, none of the drones, none of the things we pay millions of dollars for caught him? How did he get a ladder there? If the ladder was there, was it always there? Why was the ladder there? Secret Service welds manhole covers closed when a president drives down a road. How was there a ladder sitting around, ready to climb up to the highest ground at the venue, and the Secret Service failed to take it away?

There is plenty of video of eyewitnesses yelling that there was a guy with a rifle climbing up on a ladder to the roof for at least 120 seconds before the first shot was fired. Why were the police looking for him while Secret Service wasn't? Why did the sniper have him in his sights for over a minute before he took a shot? Why did a cop climb up the ladder to look around? When Thomas Matthew Cooks pointed a gun at him, he then ducked and came down off the ladder. Did he call anyone to warn that this young man had a rifle within range of the president?

How is it the Secret Service has a female bodyguard who doesn't even reach Trump's nipples? How was she going to guard the president's body with hers? How is it another female Secret Service agent pulled her gun out a good four minutes too late, then looked around, apparently not knowing what to do? She then couldn't even get the pistol back into the holster because she's a Melissa McCarthy body double. I don't think it's a good idea to have Melissa McCarthy guarding the president.

Here’s the critical question now: Who trusts the FBI with the shooter’s computer? Will his hard drive get filed with the Nashville manifesto? How is it that the Secret Service almost didn't have snipers at all but decided to supply them only one day before the rally because all the local resources were going to be put on Jill Biden? I want Jill Biden safe, of course. I want Jill Biden to have what the first lady should have for security, but you can’t hire a few extra guys to make sure our candidates are safe?

How is it that we have a Secret Service director, Kimberly Cheatle, whose experience is literally guarding two liters of Squirt and spicy Doritos? Did you know that's her background? She's in charge of the United States Secret Service, and her last job was as the head of security for Pepsi.

This is a game, and that's what makes this sick. This is a joke. There are people in our country who thought it was OK to post themselves screaming about the shooter’s incompetence: “How do you miss that shot?” Do you realize how close we came to another JFK? If the president hadn't turned his head at the exact moment he did, it would have gone into the center of his head, and we would be a different country today.

Now, Joe Biden is also saying that we shouldn't make assumptions about the motive of the shooter. Well, I think we can assume one thing: He wanted to kill the Republican presidential candidate. Can we agree on that at least? Can we assume that much?

How can the media even think of blaming Trump for the rhetoric when the Democrats and the media constantly call him literally worse than Hitler who must be stopped at all costs?

These questions need to be answered if we want to know the truth behind what could have been one of the most consequential days in U.S. history. Yet, the FBI has its hands clasped on all the sources that could point to the truth. There must be an independent investigation to get to the bottom of these glaring “mistakes.”

POLL: Do you think Trump is going to win the election?

Kevin Dietsch / Staff, Chip Somodevilla / Staff, Kevin Dietsch / Staff | Getty Image

It feels like all of the tension that has been building over the last four years has finally burst to the surface over the past month. Many predicted 2024 was going to be one of the most important and tumultuous elections in our lifetimes, but the last two weeks will go down in the history books. And it's not over yet.

The Democratic National Convention is in August, and while Kamala seems to be the likely candidate to replace Biden, anything could happen in Chicago. And if Biden is too old to campaign, isn't he too old to be president? Glenn doesn't think he'll make it as President through January, but who knows?

There is a lot of uncertainty that surrounds the current political landscape. Trump came out of the attempted assassination, and the RNC is looking stronger than ever, but who knows what tricks the Democrats have up their sleeves? Let us know your predictions in the poll below:

Is Trump going to win the election?

Did the assassination attempt increase Trump's chances at winning in November?

Did Trump's pick of J.D. Vance help his odds?

Did the Trump-Biden debate in June help Trump's chances?

Did Biden's resignation from the election hand Trump a victory in November? 

Do the Democrats have any chance of winning this election?