Mark Levin interview: Are we any closer to a Constitutional convention?

Mark Levin has championed the idea of holding a modern day Constitutional convention but few took the possibility of it actually happening seriously. Now, after government abuses continue to pile up, momentum is gaining. Will it actually happen? Glenn talks that and news of the day on radio.

Get more on this story from Mark's book The Liberty Amendments.

GLENN: Welcome to the program, Mark Levin. Glad to have you.

MARK: Glenn, how are you?

GLENN: I'm great. I'm a little upset. I just talked to Kevin O'Connor, the owner of Memories Pizza in Indiana. Sweet, sweet guy. They're afraid of opening up their shop because a -- try this on for size. You ready? A local TV station just happened to Google, and they were just looking for a few of the local persons in the small town on the Freedom of Religion Act. And they just wanted to find some local -- and they just happened to find this place that was decorated for Easter and had a sign about how we pray, you know, as a family. So they went in and they asked the daughter if you were asked to cater a gay wedding, you know, as a pizza place, would you do it? And they said, no, but we don't refuse service to anybody here. You know, and we have gay customers and whatever. But now they're being hammered. And a teacher in Indiana tweeted, who will join me tonight at Memories Pizza to burn the place down to the ground?

MARK: You know what, tell me how many gay people who run pizzerias are prepared to conduct ceremonies at evangelical weddings? You know, we could turn this all around. The fact of the matter is, what's going on here is so un-American, and the media are so pathetic. So totalitarian.

GLENN: No, no, Mark, hang on just a second. I'm going the other way. I think this is getting great. Maybe we should have a night where we go out and we break down their doors or -- hey, I know, we break all of the glass and we do it at night and we call it maybe the night of broken glass -- that doesn't sound -- hey, that's classy sounding. Let's do that.

MARK: It is just amazing to me. People understand this law, all it does is provide people of faith who can demonstrate that providing service at -- let's say, this is just one example. At a same-sex wedding, substantially burdens their religious practices and beliefs. Then you get to go to court, then you have this high burden, it's a substantially high burden where you have to prove that it's substantially burdens your religious beliefs and practices. And if the court says no, you have to service that wedding.

GLENN: Here's the amazing thing, nobody would go -- nobody would do this to the Amish. It's just because Christians -- so many Christians appear to be hypocrites. Because, quite honestly, a lot of Christians are hypocrites. And they don't live their --

MARK: They don't care about the Christians who are hypocrites.

GLENN: I know that. I know that. So there are a lot of Christians who are like, I don't really care. It doesn't matter to me. I'll serve anybody. Sure. I'll go serve a -- you know, a devil worship, you know, ceremony. Whatever. I'll go do that.

MARK: I want to read you something. It's very short. I want to read you something because I know you'll move on eventually. I want to hit this.

James Madison, the first Congress. He was chairman of the House Conference Committee on the Bill of Rights. His first draft of religious liberty related to the first amendment, which became the first amendment, read as follows, quote: The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any matter or on any pretext infringed. Unquote.

Now, getting it through the committee, the House, then to the Senate, then to the states, it changed to Congress shall make no law respecting the establishing of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. But this was the mentality. This is the background. In other words, even our pre-colonial times, people came to this country for religious liberty. Now, if the country doesn't stand for religious liberty, what the hell does it stand for?

GLENN: It doesn't stand for anything right now.

Let me ask you this, Mark, that says conscience. I would go a step further. If there is somebody who is, you know, really big in the Planned Parenthood movement and was leading the charge for everybody has got to have birth control at birth you need to be able to get birth control. And somebody -- and they run a print shop. And somebody comes in and they're evangelical Christians and they're doing this magazine and flier and everything else that says, you know, no to abortion and everything else, that would violate their -- it would be hard for them to do. I believe they have a right to say, I'm not going to take your business.

MARK: Well, ultimately at least from our founding principles, you're correct.

But you see, the religious liberty now should be the new civil rights movement.

GLENN: Yes, it should.

MARK: Because it's under brutal assault. And, of course, it's under assault because we have damn few institutions left to stand up to big iron-fisted centralized government, and this is one of them.

But I'll tell you something else, Glenn, if they think they're going to find people of faith, whatever their faith is, who are just going to buckle under and say, all right, fine, I'll just throw my faith out the window and do what I'm told. And, you know, three years ago, this wasn't even a big issue, now it's a big issue. It ain't going to happen. People of faith, big faith. I don't mean sort of secularists who show up on Saturdays and Sundays depending on their faith. I mean people who are actually believers, they won't buckle under to this stuff.

GLENN: Does this bother you that we're talking about this while Christians, Muslims, atheists, and homosexuals are being thrown off a building by ISIS?

MARK: Well, you're right. It's amazing. And not just ISIS, by the IslamoNazi regime in Iran which we're negotiating with.

GLENN: Yeah, I find this incredible.

MARK: Are they doing that in Indiana, by the way?

GLENN: We're bashing a pizza parlor in Indiana, yet we're sitting down trying to find common ground with people who are currently killing, crucifying homosexuals.

MARK: Because it's easy. It's easy for some doofus who graduated with a D-minus from journalism school to go into a pizza parlor and harass a little girl. It's quite different if they actually flew over to Tehran and demonstrated that they are real journalists, they have really guts, but they're not. They're pathetic.

GLENN: Well, how about the journalist from Iran that is now no longer welcome because he spilled the beans and said it's like the United States is negotiating on behalf of Iran. And now he can't go back to Iran or he'll be killed and arrested.

MARK: Of course. That's quite right.

GLENN: There's real journalism for you. Let me switch subjects here. First of all, let me ask you about Iran. We had a conversation yesterday.

MARK: You asked it.

GLENN: I know that. We had a conversation yesterday. We can't let that stand. The Congress cannot let that stand. Do you think Congress will do anything if he comes back with a deal with Iran?

MARK: No. You know, they seem to think going on Fox and beating their chest is doing something. It's doing nothing. Here's what happened, Glenn. As soon as Mitch McConnell was elected, the next morning, he went in front of the Mitch McConnell Memorial, something or other, in Kentucky, and announced that we will not shut down the government.

Now, first of all, to preemptively blame yourself for shutting down the government seems fundamentally stupid to me, but there you go. That's number one.

Number two, what he really means by that is we're surrendering the power of the purse. If Congress surrenders the power of the purse, above all else, impeachment and the rest, it has no power. That's what congresses do. They spend money. They tax. They borrow. What the hell else do they do? So if every prior Congress uses the power of the purse to try and effect change in departments and agencies, in presidential directives, and so forth and so on, when you surrender that, you have no power left. So what are they going to do exactly? That's number one.

Number two, in the Senate, they should abolish the filibuster while this guy is president of the United States because that's a rule. That's not in the Constitution. In order to fight this imperial president. But he won't do it.

Now, you and I can talk until we're blue in the face. The answer is, they won't do anything to stop this president. He knows it. And this is why he pushes harder and harder and is more and more

despotic.

GLENN: I will tell you, Mark, I'm getting a lot of mail from people that say that you and I are among the only ones that are taking on Karl Rove, Grover Norquist, and the G.O.P. But I don't think that's true. I think there are millions of Americans who feel exactly the same way. These guys got to be stopped. They just have to be stopped.

MARK: Well, these guys have been hanging around forever. Let's look at Karl Rove. The architect, pretty funny, huh? Let's look at his record. Number one, in 2006, you know, when George Bush came in, he didn't win the popular quote. He did win legitimately the electoral college, so he was a legitimate president. But who was the architect of that? Rove. Then in 2006, we lose both the House and the Senate. They had a Republican House and Senate when they came in, we lost them both, under who? The architect. Karl Rove. We lose with McCain. We lose with Romney. Now they tell us conservatives can't win. This guy is a Svengali. You're right to take him on. I despise him. And I despise what he's doing to my party. It's still my party, barely. And I despise what he's doing to my country.

As for Grover Norquist, that is one seedy character, no question about it.

GLENN: Okay. Let me change this subject --

MARK: And, by the way, thank you for slamming away. And I've done everything I can on my social sites to support you.

GLENN: Well, thank you. I know that. And I know that I'm not alone because you were leading this with Karl Rove. You've been there before I was.

Let's talk a little about North Dakota. It became the 27th state to call for a constitutional convention. When I saw that there had been 27 states. This is your idea. It came from -- well, it was the founder's idea, but you're the one that brought it up in your book, and it caught fire. And when I saw that we were, what, six states away --

PAT: We're almost there.

MARK: Thirty-four we need.

PAT: Seven states. We need seven more. Now, so the legislatures of these 27 states, Mark, have already voted on this?

MARK: All right. Let me slow this down a little. Let me unravel this a little.

First of all, the language is important. Because the John Birchers who despise me -- and the feeling is mutual -- tell you that this is a constitutional convention. It is not. Article five says convention of the states.

GLENN: Okay.

MARK: There's a reason why that's important. They're not free to just go to this convention and throw out the Constitution. They actually have to go to a convention of the states. Look at it as a meeting of the states. The state sends delegates to meet, and they meet to discuss possible amendments to the Constitution, just as Congress meets all the time and they can propose amendments. Well, now a certain number of states can meet and propose amendments. Now, first of all, let's start right there.

Do we believe in federalism, or do we not? Do we believe the problem is this overbearing centralized federal leviathan, or do we not? So as conservatives, immediately this should be attractive to us. We have an ongoing constitutional convention, it's called the Supreme Court. We have an ongoing constitutional convention, it's called the president and Congress. They're changing, undermining, usurping the Constitution daily. This is the only recourse we have to fight back. That's number one.

Number two, I don't believe we should only be focused on a balanced budget amendment. Our problem is systemic. Our problem is structural. We are no longer a constitutional republic. Or federal republic. Or representative republic. I don't know what the hell we are. But we're not that. To say I just want a balance budget amendment. You'll be balancing the federal budget, but the Congress will still be out of control and Obama and the Supreme Court. That's why there are other things that need to be done. Term limits for members of Congress. Term limits on the Supreme Court and so forth.

PAT: Yes.

GLENN: I will tell you, when I saw that it was only budget, I thought, well, that's a good start, but term limits should be in there as well. And everybody agrees on term limits, except those in power. And the only way it will happen is through a convention of states.

MARK: That's correct. The only way you'll bust up this entrenched professional class is to bust them up. Begging them to bust themselves up or beg them to restrain themselves, they're not going to do it.

GLENN: Here's the problem with this that I've not been able to solve. You've probably thought it all through. The problem is, not necessarily with the politicians, I mean, it is with the politicians. But it doesn't stop there. The State Department needs to be just fumigated. So how do you get -- you get new guys coming in all the time, you're going to have all the Karl Roves, all the professionals that are there, who are like, no, no, you don't know how the game is played. We've been setting this up for a long time. You just do this. How do you get the State Department to react to politicians? They think these guys will come and go. We'll be here forever.

MARK: Here's a couple things. Number one, this is why among my proposed reform amendments, three-fifths of the state legislatures. You know, the state legislatures, Glenn, acting together are more powerful than the federal government, period. This is what people don't get. The framers said, okay, here, we'll give you a fire alarm. And if the house is on fire, pull the damn thing. So my proposal is that the state legislatures, if three-fifths of the legislatures want to override a federal statute or a federal regulation -- if they can do it within two years, they do it. And there are other proposals in there. You're talking about the permanent bureaucracy.

GLENN: Yes.

MARK: Well, we have to elect people, or in my view, appoint senators through the state legislature process, who are going to do that.

GLENN: Amen.

MARK: We can only go so far. You've made the point that the real war here is a culture war. Okay, if Americans don't want to be free, they're not going to be free. You're the latest to say this. Franklin said it. Lincoln said it. Reagan said it. You've said it. It's true. If we don't want to be led by virtuous people, we won't be led by virtuous people. If we want to live under the iron fist of invisible shadowy consultants and operatives, then we will. But there are certain things we can do to address this like term limits, like giving the state legislatures the power to appoint senators again and giving state legislatures the power to override these outrageous federal regulations and federal statutes. We wouldn't have Obamacare today if the state legislatures would step up. We wouldn't have an out-of-control EPA today if the state legislatures would step up. So when I talk to these state senators and representatives, I say, pal, you have an obligation under the federal Constitution to step up. Now step up and do something.

GLENN: Mark Levin, it is great to talk to you. Great to have you on the air.

MARK: You're a good man, my brother.

'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 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 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 Gen Z’s anger over housing driving them toward socialism?

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?