Rep. Louie Gohmert updates Glenn on the plan to treat the Iran nuclear deal as a treaty

September 16, 2015

WRITER

Rep. Louie Gohmert joined Glenn on radio today to share the latest on Mitch McConnell and the Iran deal.

Glenn told listeners to tune in closely because it's "critically important that we get people to put a little pressure on Mitch McConnell and those in the Senate."

Listen to the full exchange or read the transcript below.

Below is a rush transcript of this segment, it might contain errors.

GLENN: Louie Gohmert is a good friend of ours. A good friend of the nation. He's about to get on a plane so we'll keep this kind of short. But I wanted to talk to him a little bit about a letter he sent to Majority Leader Mitch McConnell yesterday. This is really critically important that we get people to put a little pressure on Mitch McConnell and those in the Senate. Because we're about to do a very, very bad deal. And there is a way out of this that saves face for even Mitch McConnell. And Louie is here to explain this. Hi, Louie, how are you?

LOUIE: Well, as far as I know, okay, Glenn. But you're right. This is so critical. It's probably the most important vote that anybody in the Senate will ever cast if they'll go ahead and cast that. But that means that we got to do -- well, the Senate has to do the following things. And there are just four. And McConnell's got to lead the way, and people need to let him know.

GLENN: Okay. So let's look at number one: They need to announce that the Iran agreement is a treaty and, therefore, the Corker-Cardin Bill does not apply to it.

LOUIE: That's right.

GLENN: Now, this is really important because the president and John Kerry came out and said, "This isn't a treaty." And so they made this backroom deal. But it was very clear, the Republicans said, "Okay, but you have to release all of the details and then we'll look at it not as a treaty." And they have already violated that. And it's not even our White House that has violated this. It is Iran that has violated this.

LOUIE: Yeah, Iran has made it very clear that this is not going to be binding on them. But if you look at what Obama and Kerry said right after the Security Council voted, they said, "Gee, if we don't do what's in the deal, then we're going to be in breach already." Well, that sounds like they're expecting this to be a binding treaty. And there are a number of provisions in the Iran deal that amend or change the treaty, the non-proliferation treaty. You cannot change provisions of a treaty unless you do so in another treaty. This is clearly a treaty, Glenn.

GLENN: Okay. So the second thing is that they have to do is declare that through Senate rule -- the Senate rules make require a different procedure. The Constitution does not prevent the Senate from bringing up a treaty for a ratification vote. What does this mean?

LOUIE: Well, it means that normally the president sends over an agreement to the Senate and says, "This is a treaty. So I need a ratification vote because the Constitution requires it." Now, that's what the -- that's not what the Constitution says. The Constitution just says, the Senate has to concur with two-thirds of those present voting in favor. So it doesn't have to be sent over by the president. The Senate can simply declare it's a treaty. We're going to have a ratification vote on it. And as Professor Neu from Berkeley used to say, "You can -- that would indicate if there's not votes to ratify when the vote is taken that it's not enforceable against the United States."

GLENN: Okay. So then the third point is some Senate nonsense about voting for cloture. Blah, blah.

LOUIE: Exactly.

GLENN: And then number four is actually voting on the ratification of the Iranian treaty.

LOUIE: That's right. But it is important for the senators to understand, "Look, you cannot let a small group of Democrats prevent you from voting on the most important issue that you'll ever have to face in the Senate." And it's not enough to say, "Well, gee, we tried." No. Fifty-one votes will change the cloture requirement so it only takes 51 votes to set aside cloture so they can go ahead and vote for ratification.

GLENN: So you said this yesterday to Mitch McConnell. Do you actually believe Mitch McConnell is going to do anything on it or care?

LOUIE: I don't -- he's got to care because it is going to cost him and it's going to cost the Republicans. But more important than anything, it is going to cost this country. Because if they just slide, the let the president slide into this deal and say, "Well, the Senate didn't vote it down under Corker and, therefore, it's binding and, therefore, gee, we had this agreement with Iran." So if Israel defends themselves as they surely will have to, then this puts us on the side of defending Iran and defending this agreement against Israel. And that would be the unthinkable.

GLENN: All right. So I understand that. What I meant by that is: Do you think he's going to care -- what do you need people to do to get him --

LOUIE: You bet you. They need to contact their senators. Both of their senators. It doesn't matter party. And let them know that all hell is going to break loose unless they make sure that the Senate sets aside cloture. Declares this a treaty and votes on ratification.

GLENN: So if I'm calling my senator and I say, "I want you to declare the Iranian deal a treaty and treat it as such." That's the message I need --

LOUIE: And set aside cloture. That's not going to be good enough to hide behind.

GLENN: I don't really -- I hate that part of --

LOUIE: I do too.

GLENN: I hate that.

PAT: Yeah, that's inside baseball.

GLENN: Yeah, it is.

LOUIE: Well, Harry Reid set it aside repeatedly on the confirmation process. And this is the most important vote, much more important than any of those. So set aside, do the right thing.

GLENN: Okay. Thank you very much, Louie. I appreciate it and have a safe trip.

LOUIE: Thanks so much.

GLENN: Thank you.

'Rage against the dying of the light': Charlie Kirk lived that mandate

PHILL MAGAKOE / Contributor | Getty Images

Kirk’s tragic death challenges us to rise above fear and anger, to rebuild bridges where others build walls, and to fight for the America he believed in.

I’ve only felt this weight once before. It was 2001, just as my radio show was about to begin. The World Trade Center fell, and I was called to speak immediately. I spent the day and night by my bedside, praying for words that could meet the moment.

Yesterday, I found myself in the same position. September 11, 2025. The assassination of Charlie Kirk. A friend. A warrior for truth.

Out of this tragedy, the tyrant dies, but the martyr’s influence begins.

Moments like this make words feel inadequate. Yet sometimes, words from another time speak directly to our own. In 1947, Dylan Thomas, watching his father slip toward death, penned lines that now resonate far beyond his own grief:

Do not go gentle into that good night. / Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Thomas was pleading for his father to resist the impending darkness of death. But those words have become a mandate for all of us: Do not surrender. Do not bow to shadows. Even when the battle feels unwinnable.

Charlie Kirk lived that mandate. He knew the cost of speaking unpopular truths. He knew the fury of those who sought to silence him. And yet he pressed on. In his life, he embodied a defiance rooted not in anger, but in principle.

Picking up his torch

Washington, Jefferson, Adams — our history was started by men who raged against an empire, knowing the gallows might await. Lincoln raged against slavery. Martin Luther King Jr. raged against segregation. Every generation faces a call to resist surrender.

It is our turn. Charlie’s violent death feels like a knockout punch. Yet if his life meant anything, it means this: Silence in the face of darkness is not an option.

He did not go gently. He spoke. He challenged. He stood. And now, the mantle falls to us. To me. To you. To every American.

We cannot drift into the shadows. We cannot sit quietly while freedom fades. This is our moment to rage — not with hatred, not with vengeance, but with courage. Rage against lies, against apathy, against the despair that tells us to do nothing. Because there is always something you can do.

Even small acts — defiance, faith, kindness — are light in the darkness. Reaching out to those who mourn. Speaking truth in a world drowning in deceit. These are the flames that hold back the night. Charlie carried that torch. He laid it down yesterday. It is ours to pick up.

The light may dim, but it always does before dawn. Commit today: I will not sleep as freedom fades. I will not retreat as darkness encroaches. I will not be silent as evil forces claim dominion. I have no king but Christ. And I know whom I serve, as did Charlie.

Two turning points, decades apart

On Wednesday, the world changed again. Two tragedies, separated by decades, bound by the same question: Who are we? Is this worth saving? What kind of people will we choose to be?

Imagine a world where more of us choose to be peacemakers. Not passive, not silent, but builders of bridges where others erect walls. Respect and listening transform even the bitterest of foes. Charlie Kirk embodied this principle.

He did not strike the weak; he challenged the powerful. He reached across divides of politics, culture, and faith. He changed hearts. He sparked healing. And healing is what our nation needs.

At the center of all this is one truth: Every person is a child of God, deserving of dignity. Change will not happen in Washington or on social media. It begins at home, where loneliness and isolation threaten our souls. Family is the antidote. Imperfect, yes — but still the strongest source of stability and meaning.

Mark Wilson / Staff | Getty Images

Forgiveness, fidelity, faithfulness, and honor are not dusty words. They are the foundation of civilization. Strong families produce strong citizens. And today, Charlie’s family mourns. They must become our family too. We must stand as guardians of his legacy, shining examples of the courage he lived by.

A time for courage

I knew Charlie. I know how he would want us to respond: Multiply his courage. Out of this tragedy, the tyrant dies, but the martyr’s influence begins. Out of darkness, great and glorious things will sprout — but we must be worthy of them.

Charlie Kirk lived defiantly. He stood in truth. He changed the world. And now, his torch is in our hands. Rage, not in violence, but in unwavering pursuit of truth and goodness. Rage against the dying of the light.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Glenn Beck resurrects the 9-12 Project to support Charlie Kirk's family

Glenn Beck is once again calling on his loyal listeners and viewers to come together and channel the same unity and purpose that defined the historic 9-12 Project. That movement, born in the wake of national challenges, brought millions together to revive core values of faith, hope, and charity.

Glenn created the original 9-12 Project in early 2009 to bring Americans back to where they were in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. In those moments, we weren't Democrats and Republicans, conservative or liberal, Red States or Blue States, we were united as one, as America. The original 9-12 Project aimed to root America back in the founding principles of this country that united us during those darkest of days.

This new initiative draws directly from that legacy, focusing on supporting the family of Charlie Kirk in these dark days following his tragic murder.

The revival of the 9-12 Project aims to secure the long-term well-being of Charlie Kirk's wife and children. All donations will go straight to meeting their immediate and future needs. If the family deems the funds surplus to their requirements, Charlie's wife has the option to redirect them toward the vital work of Turning Point USA.

This campaign is more than just financial support—it's a profound gesture of appreciation for Kirk's tireless dedication to the cause of liberty. It embodies the unbreakable bond of our community, proving that when we stand united, we can make a real difference.
Glenn Beck invites you to join this effort. Show your solidarity by donating today and honoring Charlie Kirk and his family in this meaningful way.

You can learn more about the 9-12 Project and donate HERE

The dangerous lie: Rights as government privileges, not God-given

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?

Glenn's Show Prep