#NeverTrump #NeverHillary #NeverMind: A Convention of States Is the Answer

The American Constitution is the longest running constitution in the history of the world for a reason: It was brilliantly written. Yet we're seeing its light flicker out due to power-hungry political elites who no longer follow the will of the people. This is the real reason the Second Amendment was put into the Constitution --- to stop a tyrannical government. Hopefully, we never get to that point because our Founders placed emergency stops along the way. One of them, is the Convention of States, outlined in Article V of the U.S. Constitution.

RELATED: Impeach Clinton to Bar Her from Holding Federal Office. It’s Constitutional.

Last weekend in Colonial Williamsburg, Virginia, a mock Convention was held with 137 delegates from all 50 states. The simulated Convention allowed participants to practice the process of invoking Article V, which has never been attempted in the history of the U.S.

The Convention delegates passed amendment proposals on the following six ideas:

1. Requiring the states to approve any increase in the national debt

2. Term limits on Congress

3. Limiting federal overreach by returning the Commerce Clause to its original meaning

4. Limiting the power of federal regulations by giving an easy congressional override

5. Require a super majority for federal taxes and repeal the 16th Amendment

6. Give the states (by a 3/5ths vote) the power to abrogate any federal law, regulation or executive order.

Mark Meckler, one of the nation’s most effective grassroots activists and a national leader for the Convention of States, joined The Glenn Beck Program on Wednesday to share the fascinating and promising results experienced at the Convention.

"It was like sitting and watching history. I mean, it was really extraordinary," Meckler told Glenn.

While Americans have been arguing over the 2016 presidential candidates, Meckler and his team have been working behind the scenes on solutions for real change to put power back in the hands of the American people --- exactly where the Founders' intended it.

What can you do? Get informed, excited and involved in this credible effort to harness the power of the federal government.

SIGN THE PETITION in favor of invoking Article V of the U.S. Constitution for a Convention of States.

Read below or listen to the full segments for answers to these revolutionary questions:

• Did the delegates wear powdered wigs?

• How many states must pass a resolution to hold a Convention?

• What are the safeguards to stop a runaway Convention?

• What percentage of Americans want a Convention of States?

• What is the origin of the terms "right" and "left"?

• How many states must participate to ratify changes?

• What percentage of Americans say the federal government is too big?

Listen to these segments from The Glenn Beck Program:

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

GLENN: Around the same time we were doing our constitutional convention, there was a revolution fomenting overseas. And King Louis was either stupid or just so detached that he didn't really see what was coming. And he called everybody together -- all the lords and the ladies and everybody else, and said, "Okay. Come on, everybody. Let's get together. And let's open up. And let's look at how we can do things better." Well, it started to go awry and started to go the way he didn't like it. And instead of quashing it or getting deeper into it and say, "Okay. Now, let's see and really work it out," he just instead decided the next day to lock the doors. And so all the people showed up, and the doors were locked. And that was just, you know, oh, well. It's over.

But they didn't like that. The people who were attending the convention didn't like that at all. So they just said, we're going to meet on the tennis court. And they took what was called the tennis court oath. And this is how we get left and right and everything else. That thing spiraled out of control and went into the French Revolution.

There's hopefully no way that anything like that happens at the Convention of States. And that's why what happened this weekend was so important. Because there's a lot of concerns that you start opening up the Constitution, and maybe things can spiral out of control. Again, our Founders were brilliant, and they knew there are safeguards. We'll put them in here. So it's a very controlled situation.

Mark Meckler is with us from the Convention of States. You were in Williamsburg. What was it like to do a -- the possibility of a real convention, constitutional hood-up in Williamsburg?

MARK: It was like sitting and watching history. I mean, it was really extraordinary, Glenn. You had delegates from -- or, commissioners from all 50 states. A hundred thirty-seven commissioners flew in from all over the country, most of them sitting legislators, some retired state legislators, some just citizen delegates from the state. But the majority were citizen -- or, were state legislators. And, man, I will tell you, the first day when they entered that room, the placards up for every state, huge American flag, 12 by 24, behind the dais. And when the Georgia -- the interim president from Georgia, Representative Brockway gaveled that thing to order, it was incredible the electricity in the room.

PAT: Did you guys wear powdered wigs just for fun?

MARK: You know, they had them there in Williamsburg if we had wanted them. But everybody seemed to opt out. It was a little weird.

PAT: Yeah. Weird.

GLENN: So let's go over this: Convention of States, Article V of the Constitution, has it ever been invoked before?

MARK: Never been used.

GLENN: And it has never been used because it is really kind of a last resort, break glass in case of an emergency kind of thing.

MARK: Well, and also the bar is very high. It's difficult to call it a convention. It takes 34 states passing essentially identical resolutions to get to the point where you can actually have a convention. Two-thirds of states have to do it. That's a high bar to get to, to get two-thirds of states to agree on anything.

GLENN: Why do you think this is going to happen this time?

MARK: Because the American people are united. And I know that sounds outrageous based on the current election we're having and the way things are going. But here's what they're united around, Glenn: Seventy-two percent of Americans say that the federal government is too big and does too much. That doesn't matter whether you're Republican or Democrat and what your ideology is, you're sick of the federal government in your business, in your face. That's just true for most Americans. And it's been true and growing for a long time. Fifty-two percent of Americans today say that the federal government has actually lost its legitimacy. It's not a legitimate representative of the American people anymore.

GLENN: 52 percent.

MARK: 52 percent. That is, by the way, a higher number by far than supported the American Revolution back in Revolutionary times.

GLENN: Oh, yeah. Big time.

MARK: And so what it means is that Americans are not looking to Washington, DC, anymore. They're looking away from Washington, DC. They're ready to take their power back, and Article V is the mechanism that the Founders gave us to do that.

PAT: How many states do you have on board so far?

MARK: So eight states have now passed the resolution. Thirty-eight states will be taking it up come January of 2017.

GLENN: You need 30?

MARK: You need 34.

PAT: So we need 26 more.

MARK: Twenty-six more, yes, sir.

PAT: So what do you say, Mark, to the people who say, "Well, what about a runaway convention? How do you safeguard against that?" Everybody is afraid they're going to open up the Second Amendment and change that and take that away and all of that. How do you -- how do you respond to that?

MARK: Sure. Well, let me start at the backside, which is the ultimate safeguard the Founders put in. It takes 38 states, or three-quarters of states, to ratify anything that comes out of convention. That's a super high bar. Right? Super, super majority.

So when you put the math on its head, what it means is that it takes only 13 states to stop anything that those of us sitting here wouldn't like. So I want you to think about that: One of the things I hear all the time from people who are against this -- and it is a small minority, but a vocal minority of people against this.

PAT: They really are.

MARK: They say, "We're going to lose our Second Amendment. They're going to take away our guns in this convention." So I want you to imagine this: Thirteen states can stop anything that comes out of convention. That means, in our case, the 13 most conservative states.

So here's what you have to believe if you believe in this runaway with a stuff. You have to believe Texas, Georgia, Alabama, Tennessee, the Carolinas, Florida, Nebraska, the Dakotas, they're going to vote to take away your guns. You have to believe that. I've been in 40 states in the last two years, most of them in the state legislatures --

PAT: They're not going to.

MARK: -- those people are not going to vote for anything that would limit your liberty. So the threshold is so high, it is impossible to pass anything that would limit --

GLENN: So there's two really high thresholds. Thirty-four states need to say, yes, we'll go. And then -- then they hash whatever it is out. Then it goes back, and 38 states have to say, "Yes, we're going to do that."

MARK: That's correct.

GLENN: Holy cow.

MARK: Meaning it takes a mass majority of public opinion to get something out of convention and then to the states and then ratified.

And, remember, the way ratification works is important. I spent a lot of time in state legislatures. The things that they're very best at is doing nothing. They're experts at nothing.

GLENN: Yeah.

MARK: And so in order to not ratify an amendment, what they need to do is nothing. No committee hearings. They don't have to vote it down. They don't ever even have to talk about it. If they don't take it up, they don't join the ratification. So getting something ratified is an exceptionally high bar.

PAT: Yeah, ask the equal rights people about that. The ERA amendment that never passed.

GLENN: So there's two things. That gives me great safeguards. But that also makes me say, "Crap. They're not going to do any of this."

STU: Right. Why would they do anything that would help us as far as increasing our liberty, when only 13 liberal states can block it?

GLENN: I had a -- I read a great line from somebody -- and I don't agree with this at all, but they were like, if voting really did something, the government would have banned it.

(chuckling)

MARK: I think they would like to ban Article V.

PAT: Yes.

MARK: And they've been trying with this leftist propaganda for a long time to turn the right against itself and to stop us from using it.

But to answer your question, here's why: Because the only things that are going to come out of convention are the things that have majority -- super majority support. And let me give you some examples.

For over 30 years, the balanced budget amendment, in one form or another, has polled at about 80 percent with the American public.

So when's the last time the federal government cared about a balanced budget amendment. Right? They don't. But the American public, by massive numbers, wants it. The American public by massive numbers wants to term limits. Whatever you think of term limits, about 80 percent of Americans say Congress should be subject to term limits. We tried in the late '70s. What happened is we got to 23 states, passed term limits on their congressional delegations. The Supreme Court had the audacity to tell us we can't do it. But we can through Article V.

So these are the kinds of things that are going to come through the process, common sense reforms that the vast majority of Americans agree with and believe in.

GLENN: So what happened at the convention? It's called to order. What happened?

MARK: I mean, the first thing, and to me the most extraordinary thing -- you know, I've been working on this for a long time, so to get to this moment where the convention was actually gaveled to order was extraordinary for me and my staff.

GLENN: It must have been humbling.

MARK: Incredibly humbling. I mean, it gives me chills just to think about it now. The most amazing thing, Glenn, you know, if you've ever sent a kid off to college, that's kind of what it felt like. Like, we got to this moment. The gavel falls. We really had nothing to do with it anymore. It was in the hands of the commissioners. And the delegation from Georgia served as the interim chair because they were the first state to pass this. And they immediately began the voting for the officers at the convention. Ten names went into nomination. It was taken very seriously. Went through three rounds of voting until we got to the majority. And then the representative from Utah, Representative Ken Ivory, was seated as the first president in history of an Article V convention. Really overwhelmingly emotional to watch that take place.

GLENN: Now, this doesn't count. So this was mock. So when you say he's the first one seated for an Article V convention, I mean, is that a historic moment? Really? You know it is --

MARK: Well, it is because nobody has ever done simulation in America. In fact, they said it couldn't be done. Three years ago, we were told it was crazy and it couldn't be done.

GLENN: And you were doing the simulation just to see, "Okay. How does this thing work?" So when we get to the real one -- this isn't like some mock, hey, we're making a documentary. This is a trial run to work out the bugs and see where the pitfalls are.

MARK: As a business guy, you understand proof of concept as well as anybody, right? So you come up with your idea, you work on it, you develop it. At some point, you got to put it on the table and see if it works.

GLENN: What did you learn?

MARK: We learned a lot. I learned -- I think the hardest thing -- I had a delegate come up to me and say this. She said, "You know, everybody worries about a runaway convention. We're going to be lucky if we can crawl." You get 150 representatives from all 50 states in a room and get them to agree, is this the word "and," or does a comma go there? That's a big deal. It's going to be slow. It was incredibly deliberative, much more deliberative than I expected. Many delegates came up to me and said this, "You know, I keep having to remind myself, this is not the real thing." That's how serious they were. These folks understood that they were dealing with the Constitution, our founding charter, the most important thing that they will ever do as a state legislator. And they took it that seriously. I was really heartened by that.

GLENN: What you don't have -- I would assume, what you didn't have is any kind of -- I mean I hate to sound conspiratorial, but any kind of Soros influence. When this becomes real, you know you will have outside pressure that do not want this to happen. And many funneled. And campaigns and everything else. You had a group of generally like-mind people together?

MARK: I would say generally. We certainly had some Democrats. We had some independents. Our co-sponsor in Ohio was a Democrat from the inner city in Ohio there. So there was a mix.

GLENN: So it was generally what you would have -- what you're expecting to have.

MARK: I think -- no. To be fair, what you're pointing out is true, which is, at the real convention, you'll have what I would call the hard, radical left.

GLENN: Yes.

MARK: And I think they will be doing more than what you described, not just trying to upset the process. But they will be attempting to hijack the process.

GLENN: Yes.

MARK: They're not engaged right now because they don't like Article V.

GLENN: Okay. So when that happens, did you learn anything on how to stop that?

MARK: Yeah, we did. Because we actually ran, according to a set of convention rules, drafted by the leading expert in the country on Article V, Rob Natelson, it ran according to those rules. What we saw is, everything is orderly, everything is smooth. And, you know, when people are out of order, somebody raises a point of order, and they're stopped. So the idea that somebody is going to be allowed to raise their hand and say, for example, bring up the Second Amendment, it just couldn't happen. Because you're going to have -- remember 31 states right now, both houses controlled by Republicans, somebody is going to raise their hand and say, "Point of order, that's not within our mandate."

GLENN: Let me take a break here. And I want you to answer this question when we come back: None of -- none of the representatives for the original Constitution were going in to draw up a new constitution. All of them were going in to fix the Articles of Confederation. And that didn't happen. So I want you to tell me the difference between those two when we come back.

[break]

GLENN: Okay. So back with Mark Meckler from the Convention of States. And you can go to ConventionofStates.com. We were just talking off the air.

In speaking to Mark over the last few, I believe this is the last best hope for America. I believe this is the future. You're going to save it, it's going to be saved this way. And I just told him off the air, and I want people to hear it, I am 100 percent in. And you tell me how we can help, and I am there. Because I really believe in this and really believe, if we're going to save the republic, it has to be done constitutionally. The Founders gave us this. I don't know if they saw, you know, what we saw on Sunday night coming our way. But they saw something like that. And we need to -- we need to band together, all of us, left and right, to get this done.

Tell me why this doesn't turn into France and the tennis court or the Articles of Confederation.

MARK: Sure. Let's go to 1787. Because that's the place where most of the runaway folks go.

In 1787, we hear the story that these incredible men that gathered in Philadelphia went to amend the Articles of the Confederation. They exceeded their authority. The convention essentially ran away, and we got the new Constitution. That's obviously divinely inspired and an incredible blessing, but they were out of bounds, is what we hear over and over.

And if you had said that ten years ago, all history would have said you were correct. Today, new research has been done. And you can read these on our website. You go pull the commissions, the actual pieces of paper that these delegates or these commissioners went to Philadelphia with, and read what their authority is. And I'll tell you, I'll quote from those commissions because all of them have virtually identical language.

The language was this, that the commissioner is granted all authority necessary to render the federal Constitution adequate for the exigencies of the Union. Period. Stop. End.

No limitation on their authority. So what does it come from this idea that it was a runaway convention?

GLENN: Well, some didn't want to do it. Some didn't want to do it. They were making a case -- basically, New York was making a case for Bork.

MARK: And New York was one of two delegations that did not have that authority. There were two delegations that did not.

So the question is: But where does this widespread idea from the runaway come from? And like most bad ideas, it comes from Congress.

Because here's what's happened: The majority of states had already designated their commissioners, already given them their commissions, already given them the authority. And Congress issued what was essentially an advisory opinion and does what congressmen do and said, "Hey, the states are doing something. We ought to go along. It looks like they're going to do this without us, no matter what." And they issued this proclamation for a convention.

Important to note, in the articles, no authority to call a convention. In the articles, no authority to propose amendments, period. Congress had no authority. So they issue this proclamation, and they say to amend the Articles of Confederation. But if you read the full proclamation, it also contains the language, and take any and all actions necessary -- so those men -- it's outrageous. I just want you to think about this.

GLENN: Hang on. I have to take a break. You can finish that. And what they actually did in Williamsburg this weekend.

[break]

GLENN: All right. So Mark Meckler is here. He's talking about the Convention of States. ConventionofStates.com. This is Article V of the Constitution. This is a way to get the Congress to start listening to the people. And it's going to be very narrow. It is -- it's controlled. It is -- you can't just go in and -- and hijack the thing because, as you were saying, the Founders even and the Articles of Confederation, when they called the constitutional convention together, they had the authority to do it, except for two states.

Everybody else had the authority to do what they did. What -- first, let's start with -- where did you -- what did you do this weekend? What actually passed this weekend in this mock convention?

MARK: So it's important to remember what can be discussed in the first place. What the limitations are. So there are three subject matter areas. The first is imposing any kind of fiscal restraints on the federal government. So that would include things like a balanced budget amendment, imposing generally accepted accounting principles on the federal government, instead of unicorn-and-rainbow accounting, like they use, outrageous things like that. Second is anything that would impose scope and jurisdiction on the federal government. In other words, reimposing enumerated powers on the federal government, stuffing the beast back into the constitutional box. And the third area is imposing term limits. And that can include, by the way, which I'm in favor of, term limits on the Supreme Court and the whole federal judiciary.

GLENN: And any of the apparatus State Department?

MARK: Absolutely. Anybody in the federal government can be termed, according to this.

GLENN: Okay.

MARK: So what happened was we got into the main convention, elect the officers, and then they broke out into committees, three committees of roughly equal size, roughly 50 people per committee, a representative from each state on each committee, and they brought amendments with them that they had crafted back in their home states. We also had grassroots activists from all over the country propose amendments. We had over 1,000 proposals came in. So those were sorted and grouped together and provided to the commissioners in advance. And so they had something to start from, much like it would be in a real convention. Because these commissioners are going to come with recommendations from their own state.

GLENN: The people, yeah.

MARK: Yeah, I mean, for example, in Texas, Governor Abbott has proposed the Texas Plan. He has nine amendments he's proposed. Texas is going to bring its own plan when there's an actual convention.

(laughter)

GLENN: If Abbott is doing it, I'm ready to sign on.

MARK: Well, it's some great amendments. And he's stepped up, and he's become a leader in this movement nationally. He wrote a book about it. He's doing a great job. By the way, your lieutenant governor here in Texas signed on as well.

GLENN: Fantastic guy.

MARK: Lieutenant Dan Patrick about a week ago --

GLENN: Oh, Dan Patrick.

MARK: I think you're thinking Ken Paxton. Good friend of ours. Great supportive guy.

GLENN: Yeah, yeah.

MARK: So all the leaders are signing on here in the great state of Texas, for obvious reasons.

So what came out of it were six amendments. But the process is really important to me, Glenn. Because what happened was each committee had the ability to propose three because we were limited by time. So we limited them to three each.

What I thought was so great is that they didn't each propose three. They were so serious that one of the committees could only get to two. And so two proposed three. One proposed two. We ended up with eight on the floor. They go to full debate. The committees start presenting their reports. And one of them, out of the eight, got tabled. They just couldn't come to an agreement.

So here we are, we're doing a mock convention. It's not even the real deal. They're so serious about it, they won't vote for something that they don't absolutely believe in. They weren't willing just to put something out there. One of them gets tabled. One gets voted down outright. I mean, to me, that was the proudest part. Not what they did. But what they didn't do. The idea of a runaway -- these guys wouldn't let it runaway, and it wasn't even real.

And so we got things like -- we got a term limits amendment out. And, frankly, I didn't really love the term limits amendment. It was 12 years in the House and 12 years in the Senate, for a total of 24 years. To me, I mean --

GLENN: Jeez. Yeah, let's really crack down.

MARK: Exactly. So, but remember, you're dealing with a bunch of state legislators. They don't necessarily love term limits.

GLENN: Yeah.

PAT: Would you go with 12 years in the House or 12 years in the Senate?

MARK: I would prefer something like that.

PAT: Yeah.

STU: I'd take that. I would take it at this point. At least you would get rid of the McCains. The long-time -- the Robert Byrds.

MARK: Absolutely.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: Oh, my gosh. When you're rolling somebody in on an iron lung, it's time to go.

STU: Twelve and 12, I can deal with that. It's only two terms in the Senate.

PAT: Right. Two terms in the Senate, and it's six terms in the House.

STU: Six terms in the House. But, I mean, that's not ridiculous.

MARK: But what was so great about it was the debate. And you can actually watch this online. The entire uncensored debate is online.

PAT: Oh.

GLENN: Where is it?

MARK: It's at ConventionofStates.com. Right there on the front, you can look at the COS simulation. You can watch as much or as little as you want, watch your state delegations debate. It's incredible. So they're so serious. And they're arguing, "What's the right amount of time?" They're arguing about the power of the bureaucracy, if you have shorter term limits. And how the lobbyists and the bureaucrats become stronger and the representation is less. The debate was nothing great than watching great statesmen and women from all over America debate the most important issues of our time. To me, the process more than the result was extraordinary.

PAT: So you think the two things that would really be on the agenda is the term limits -- and what was the other one?

MARK: I think term limits and balanced budget are easy.

PAT: Term limits and balanced budget.

MARK: Those are easy. I think another one is easy -- which wasn't really discussed in this convention, is a single subject amendment. We're tired of 2,000-page omnibus bills.

STU: Yes.

PAT: Yes.

STU: Yes.

PAT: I think that's really important. Really important.

MARK: That's 95 percent with the American people. It's easy to get it done.

PAT: The other thing that should be done is make them go back to their districts and stay there.

MARK: I'm totally -- call that the virtual Congress. We have the technology. They should be able to --

PAT: Yes. Yes.

GLENN: And it's better for security. It's better for lobbying. You don't -- they're not all in one place, like, you know, shooting fish in a barrel. The lobbyists are going to spend a lot of money traveling --

PAT: It makes it really tough for lobbyists to --

MARK: Well, and forgive me for saying so. If you're an environmentalist, it's a much lower carbon footprint to keep them at home in their own districts. Right?

PAT: Be able to sell that to leftists.

JEFFY: Yeah.

MARK: You know, another thing that came out of it that I thought was great, something they called the abrogation amendment, allowing three-fifths of states to vote to overrule any decision of the Supreme Court or any rule, regulation, or authority coming out of Congress or the executive.

So an executive order that we don't like, three-fifths of the states vote, it's gone. It's off the table. So return the power to the people.

PAT: I love that. Love that.

GLENN: Wow, is that great. That one passed?

MARK: That's one of my favorite -- that one passed. That came out.

GLENN: Wow.

MARK: Here's another one that passed that I thought was pretty extraordinary. I think maybe more limited chance in an actual convention, the repeal of the Sixteenth Amendment passed out of convention. Extraordinary.

GLENN: Wow.

MARK: There was a huge debate around what to do after the repeal of the Sixteenth Amendment. The FairTax was suggested and debated really strongly on the floor. A long debate. And eventually they struck the FairTax, and they said, "Look, we're just going to say, we got to get rid of the federal income tax. You know, we'll figure it out legislatively what to replace it with." But the federal income tax went in the convention.

GLENN: Holy cow.

STU: So this is an interesting thing. Because let's just say this were to happen. Because the Sixteenth Amendment is directly from hell, as we know.

PAT: Southern hell.

STU: From southern hell. So it comes out and so now there's no income tax.

What if you can't pass something else to replace it? We have nothing to fund the government? Wouldn't that be an argument against this process?

GLENN: Well, first of all, it leaves here, and then the debate really starts. Hopefully this will be, you know, watched by everybody as it's going on.

STU: But if they can't pass the FairTax or whatever would replace it --

GLENN: Right. But you would have enough time between the convention and the states approving it.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: And then the government responding to what the states just approved, that you would be having that conversation.

MARK: Well, and this is what's important. So politicians are not generally known as brave souls. We don't really see much leadership out of politicians. They move when they're forced to move. And so if we want our politicians to make tough decisions, we have to put them in a situation where they are required to make tough decisions, which is what this particular situation, the repeal of the Sixteenth Amendment --

PAT: It would certainly do that, yeah.

STU: Real quick, Glenn.

Do you think there's a possibility, if you got to the point where actually the convention was going on, and these proposals were on the table like, "Hey, we need to -- you know, we're going to get rid of the Sixteenth Amendment," is it potentially possible that Congress acts on their own to offset that? So they say, "Well, wait a minute. Well, maybe we should cut taxes. Maybe we'll do term limits here instead of that." To try to stop you guys and maybe do some of the work for you. Possible?

MARK: I fully expect -- not that it's possible -- I expect that will happen. And we're prepared for that. We're preparing our grassroots, and we're preparing the state legislators. Our attitude going into this process is: Too late for Congress. And, frankly, what we say is we don't need no stinking Congress.

Because if they start to propose these and play those games, our people know those games are coming, and we will simply ignore them. We're not interested in what they have to propose. Once the process starts, they're out of the loop. They chose to be locked out by not taking action. Our people know the games are coming. The state legislators know the games are coming. And so our intent is to ignore them because they will come up with a balanced budget amendment that has so many loopholes in it, that it's meaningless. And then they'll tell us, "Look, we already did it."

STU: But does that win over states 35, 36, 37, 38, that are barely within the process and not hard-core dedicated? I mean, we saw this with -- what was it? Stupak with the abortion funding in Obamacare. You know, he was all, "I will never vote for Obamacare. Or, you know, funding for abortion." And then the president was like, "Well, what if I write it down on this Post-It note in the Oval Office." And he's like, "Oh, okay. Now I'm going to vote for it." The guys are -- the ones that are winnable --

GLENN: By the way, how is that working out for him?

STU: It worked out really well. Worked out really well.

But, I mean, those guys will be won over by some of this stuff, won't they?

MARK: Well, here's the issue: What we're talking about is not a theoretical exercise. What we're talking about is the greatest act of political muscularity in American history. And I don't say that out of ego. I'm not doing it. And it's not done yet, to be clear. It's up to the Lord whether it will actually get done. But, remember, when 34 states passed, that means that millions and millions and millions of people want this to happen. Politicians not being brave souls are very good in jumping in front of a parade. And we already see this in states where we gain more and more support, as politicians start saying, you know, this convention idea, I've always -- I was talking about this back in high school. It's incredible.

And this is literally what I expect to happen. As we move towards 30, 31, 32 states, you're going to see politicians who have been against it all along are now in favor, and they're going to champion it. It's starting to have electoral consequences for folks. We don't engage in direct electoral activity. We have 1.45 million activists. We literally now have activists in every single state legislative district in the United States of America. That's never been done before in any project in American history, as far as I'm aware. So what these people are doing is, they are putting just bald political muscle pressure on their representatives.

My goal is way beyond Convention of States. The goal is restore self-governance in America

GLENN: Amen.

MARK: The goal is to answer this question: Who decides? That's the question facing America. It's not what we should do.

GLENN: So let me ask you this, because one of the biggest who decides things is the Commerce Clause. Did they do anything on the Commerce Clause?

MARK: They did. They redefined the Commerce Clause and took it largely back to what it was intended to be, as a very limited, enumerated power. You're going to -- I know you're a Commerce Clause guy. You're going to love it. You can go to the website and look at the exact language. They did an extraordinary job drafting Commerce Clause limitations.

GLENN: Just that changes everything. EPA. Everything.

MARK: Department of Education. Department of Energy. Commerce.

GLENN: Everything changes.

STU: Any one of these. Term limits does that, I think. Balanced budget probably does that. Sixteenth Amendment definitely does.

GLENN: Yeah, I've got about a minute here. If people want to get involved, they just go to the ConventionofStates.com?

MARK: Go to ConventionofStates.com. Sign the petition. That will link you with your district. You'll get connected with your district captain. You can volunteer at any level. Do very simple things like just sign the petition or get involved and start organizing your neighbors and your friends. We've got all kinds of training tools. We're training the most sophisticated active grassroots army in America. We are going to answer the question, who decides? We decide. And you can go to ConventionofStates.com. That's how folks get involved.

GLENN: I am in 100 percent. You let us know how we can help you. Please get involved. Convention of States. Can you tell me quickly what states have -- what states you're close in.

MARK: I would say some of the most important states -- I would say the most important state in the fight right now, Texas.

GLENN: We haven't decided yet?

MARK: You have not. And we got close in the last session. We made it through the House. We got stopped by a couple of senators in the Senate, last session. Of course, we didn't have Governor Abbott on board or the lieutenant governor on board, so it's going to be different. Also, last session we had 21,000 activists in Texas. Now we have 97,000 activists in Texas. So the army is on the field, and we intend to steamroll through the Texas legislature this year. That's my number one target because as Texas goes, so go many in the states.

GLENN: Oh, big time. Okay. Good. Please, get involved. Texas: Join me by signing today. ConventionofStates.com. ConventionofStates.com.

Thank you so much. We'll talk to you again early and often, I hope.

Let me tell you about our sponsor this half-hour. We're so grateful for them providing the opportunity for us to meet with you every day. It's RealEstateAgentsITrust.com. When you need to sell your house, you need a real estate agent that is competent, you that has a plan. Has a good track record. Is honest. Is going to tell you what the truth is about. Your house and not going to give you pie in the sky stuff.

[break]

GLENN: I tell you, I got a new slogan: Never Trump, never Hillary, never mind. They just said that a minute ago. I love that. Never Trump, never Hillary, never mind. Don't need it. Don't need it. We weren't supposed to have a king. Why are we fighting for a king? The people need to take care of this. And the people -- I'm telling you, you get this done, Washington will be shook to its core.

PAT: Yep.

GLENN: To its core. And you have a chance of really saving the republic. I am all in.

STU: I mean, seriously, you get one of those things done -- I mean, we would -- I would be this dedicated to something like this, if it was just for one amendment out of that grouping that we just talked about.

GLENN: Did you hear what they said?

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: If those things passed, you would fundamentally strip Washington of so much of its power. You would just strip it of its power.

PAT: Yep.

GLENN: It would be amazing.

STU: You wouldn't have to worry about the presidential campaign.

GLENN: No. They wouldn't have to spend a billion dollars on advertising.

PAT: And they're already thinking about my favorite thing, and that's the virtual Congress, doing it from their districts, which you got to have them next to their people so the people can control them.

JEFFY: Yes.

GLENN: Yeah. Love it. Common sense. Common sense.

PAT: Yep.

GLENN: I love it. ConventionofStates.com. ConventionofStates.com.

Featured Image: Image courtesy of Convention of

The truth behind ‘defense’: How America was rebranded for war

PAUL J. RICHARDS / Staff | Getty Images

Donald Trump emphasizes peace through strength, reminding the world that the United States is willing to fight to win. That’s beyond ‘defense.’

President Donald Trump made headlines this week by signaling a rebrand of the Defense Department — restoring its original name, the Department of War.

At first, I was skeptical. “Defense” suggests restraint, a principle I consider vital to U.S. foreign policy. “War” suggests aggression. But for the first 158 years of the republic, that was the honest name: the Department of War.

A Department of War recognizes the truth: The military exists to fight and, if necessary, to win decisively.

The founders never intended a permanent standing army. When conflict came — the Revolution, the War of 1812, the trenches of France, the beaches of Normandy — the nation called men to arms, fought, and then sent them home. Each campaign was temporary, targeted, and necessary.

From ‘war’ to ‘military-industrial complex’

Everything changed in 1947. President Harry Truman — facing the new reality of nuclear weapons, global tension, and two world wars within 20 years — established a full-time military and rebranded the Department of War as the Department of Defense. Americans resisted; we had never wanted a permanent army. But Truman convinced the country it was necessary.

Was the name change an early form of political correctness? A way to soften America’s image as a global aggressor? Or was it simply practical? Regardless, the move created a permanent, professional military. But it also set the stage for something Truman’s successor, President Dwight “Ike” Eisenhower, famously warned about: the military-industrial complex.

Ike, the five-star general who commanded Allied forces in World War II and stormed Normandy, delivered a harrowing warning during his farewell address: The military-industrial complex would grow powerful. Left unchecked, it could influence policy and push the nation toward unnecessary wars.

And that’s exactly what happened. The Department of Defense, with its full-time and permanent army, began spending like there was no tomorrow. Weapons were developed, deployed, and sometimes used simply to justify their existence.

Peace through strength

When Donald Trump said this week, “I don’t want to be defense only. We want defense, but we want offense too,” some people freaked out. They called him a warmonger. He isn’t. Trump is channeling a principle older than him: peace through strength. Ronald Reagan preached it; Trump is taking it a step further.

Just this week, Trump also suggested limiting nuclear missiles — hardly the considerations of a warmonger — echoing Reagan, who wanted to remove missiles from silos while keeping them deployable on planes.

The seemingly contradictory move of Trump calling for a Department of War sends a clear message: He wants Americans to recognize that our military exists not just for defense, but to project power when necessary.

Trump has pointed to something critically important: The best way to prevent war is to have a leader who knows exactly who he is and what he will do. Trump signals strength, deterrence, and resolve. You want to negotiate? Great. You don’t? Then we’ll finish the fight decisively.

That’s why the world listens to us. That’s why nations come to the table — not because Trump is reckless, but because he means what he says and says what he means. Peace under weakness invites aggression. Peace under strength commands respect.

Trump is the most anti-war president we’ve had since Jimmy Carter. But unlike Carter, Trump isn’t weak. Carter’s indecision emboldened enemies and made the world less safe. Trump’s strength makes the country stronger. He believes in peace as much as any president. But he knows peace requires readiness for war.

Names matter

When we think of “defense,” we imagine cybersecurity, spy programs, and missile shields. But when we think of “war,” we recall its harsh reality: death, destruction, and national survival. Trump is reminding us what the Department of Defense is really for: war. Not nation-building, not diplomacy disguised as military action, not endless training missions. War — full stop.

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

Names matter. Words matter. They shape identity and character. A Department of Defense implies passivity, a posture of reaction. A Department of War recognizes the truth: The military exists to fight and, if necessary, to win decisively.

So yes, I’ve changed my mind. I’m for the rebranding to the Department of War. It shows strength to the world. It reminds Americans, internally and externally, of the reality we face. The Department of Defense can no longer be a euphemism. Our military exists for war — not without deterrence, but not without strength either. And we need to stop deluding ourselves.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Unveiling the Deep State: From surveillance to censorship

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

From surveillance abuse to censorship, the deep state used state power and private institutions to suppress dissent and influence two US elections.

The term “deep state” has long been dismissed as the province of cranks and conspiracists. But the recent declassification of two critical documents — the Durham annex, released by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), and a report publicized by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard — has rendered further denial untenable.

These documents lay bare the structure and function of a bureaucratic, semi-autonomous network of agencies, contractors, nonprofits, and media entities that together constitute a parallel government operating alongside — and at times in opposition to — the duly elected one.

The ‘deep state’ is a self-reinforcing institutional machine — a decentralized, global bureaucracy whose members share ideological alignment.

The disclosures do not merely recount past abuses; they offer a schematic of how modern influence operations are conceived, coordinated, and deployed across domestic and international domains.

What they reveal is not a rogue element operating in secret, but a systematized apparatus capable of shaping elections, suppressing dissent, and laundering narratives through a transnational network of intelligence, academia, media, and philanthropic institutions.

Narrative engineering from the top

According to Gabbard’s report, a pivotal moment occurred on December 9, 2016, when the Obama White House convened its national security leadership in the Situation Room. Attendees included CIA Director John Brennan, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, National Security Agency Director Michael Rogers, FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, Attorney General Loretta Lynch, Secretary of State John Kerry, and others.

During this meeting, the consensus view up to that point — that Russia had not manipulated the election outcome — was subordinated to new instructions.

The record states plainly: The intelligence community was directed to prepare an assessment “per the President’s request” that would frame Russia as the aggressor and then-presidential candidate Donald Trump as its preferred candidate. Notably absent was any claim that new intelligence had emerged. The motivation was political, not evidentiary.

This maneuver became the foundation for the now-discredited 2017 intelligence community assessment on Russian election interference. From that point on, U.S. intelligence agencies became not neutral evaluators of fact but active participants in constructing a public narrative designed to delegitimize the incoming administration.

Institutional and media coordination

The ODNI report and the Durham annex jointly describe a feedback loop in which intelligence is laundered through think tanks and nongovernmental organizations, then cited by media outlets as “independent verification.” At the center of this loop are agencies like the CIA, FBI, and ODNI; law firms such as Perkins Coie; and NGOs such as the Open Society Foundations.

According to the Durham annex, think tanks including the Atlantic Council, the Carnegie Endowment, and the Center for a New American Security were allegedly informed of Clinton’s 2016 plan to link Trump to Russia. These institutions, operating under the veneer of academic independence, helped diffuse the narrative into public discourse.

Media coordination was not incidental. On the very day of the aforementioned White House meeting, the Washington Post published a front-page article headlined “Obama Orders Review of Russian Hacking During Presidential Campaign” — a story that mirrored the internal shift in official narrative. The article marked the beginning of a coordinated media campaign that would amplify the Trump-Russia collusion narrative throughout the transition period.

Surveillance and suppression

Surveillance, once limited to foreign intelligence operations, was turned inward through the abuse of FISA warrants. The Steele dossier — funded by the Clinton campaign via Perkins Coie and Fusion GPS — served as the basis for wiretaps on Trump affiliates, despite being unverified and partially discredited. The FBI even altered emails to facilitate the warrants.

ROBYN BECK / Contributor | Getty Images

This capacity for internal subversion reappeared in 2020, when 51 former intelligence officials signed a letter labeling the Hunter Biden laptop story as “Russian disinformation.” According to polling, 79% of Americans believed truthful coverage of the laptop could have altered the election. The suppression of that story — now confirmed as authentic — was election interference, pure and simple.

A machine, not a ‘conspiracy theory’

The deep state is a self-reinforcing institutional machine — a decentralized, global bureaucracy whose members share ideological alignment and strategic goals.

Each node — law firms, think tanks, newsrooms, federal agencies — operates with plausible deniability. But taken together, they form a matrix of influence capable of undermining electoral legitimacy and redirecting national policy without democratic input.

The ODNI report and the Durham annex mark the first crack in the firewall shielding this machine. They expose more than a political scandal buried in the past. They lay bare a living system of elite coordination — one that demands exposure, confrontation, and ultimately dismantling.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Trump's proposal explained: Ukraine's path to peace without NATO expansion

ANDREW CABALLERO-REYNOLDS / Contributor | Getty Images

Strategic compromise, not absolute victory, often ensures lasting stability.

When has any country been asked to give up land it won in a war? Even if a nation is at fault, the punishment must be measured.

After World War I, Germany, the main aggressor, faced harsh penalties under the Treaty of Versailles. Germans resented the restrictions, and that resentment fueled the rise of Adolf Hitler, ultimately leading to World War II. History teaches that justice for transgressions must avoid creating conditions for future conflict.

Ukraine and Russia must choose to either continue the cycle of bloodshed or make difficult compromises in pursuit of survival and stability.

Russia and Ukraine now stand at a similar crossroads. They can cling to disputed land and prolong a devastating war, or they can make concessions that might secure a lasting peace. The stakes could not be higher: Tens of thousands die each month, and the choice between endless bloodshed and negotiated stability hinges on each side’s willingness to yield.

History offers a guide. In 1967, Israel faced annihilation. Surrounded by hostile armies, the nation fought back and seized large swaths of territory from Jordan, Egypt, and Syria. Yet Israel did not seek an empire. It held only the buffer zones needed for survival and returned most of the land. Security and peace, not conquest, drove its decisions.

Peace requires concessions

Secretary of State Marco Rubio says both Russia and Ukraine will need to “get something” from a peace deal. He’s right. Israel proved that survival outweighs pride. By giving up land in exchange for recognition and an end to hostilities, it stopped the cycle of war. Egypt and Israel have not fought in more than 50 years.

Russia and Ukraine now press opposing security demands. Moscow wants a buffer to block NATO. Kyiv, scarred by invasion, seeks NATO membership — a pledge that any attack would trigger collective defense by the United States and Europe.

President Donald Trump and his allies have floated a middle path: an Article 5-style guarantee without full NATO membership. Article 5, the core of NATO’s charter, declares that an attack on one is an attack on all. For Ukraine, such a pledge would act as a powerful deterrent. For Russia, it might be more palatable than NATO expansion to its border

Andrew Harnik / Staff | Getty Images

Peace requires concessions. The human cost is staggering: U.S. estimates indicate 20,000 Russian soldiers died in a single month — nearly half the total U.S. casualties in Vietnam — and the toll on Ukrainians is also severe. To stop this bloodshed, both sides need to recognize reality on the ground, make difficult choices, and anchor negotiations in security and peace rather than pride.

Peace or bloodshed?

Both Russia and Ukraine claim deep historical grievances. Ukraine arguably has a stronger claim of injustice. But the question is not whose parchment is older or whose deed is more valid. The question is whether either side is willing to trade some land for the lives of thousands of innocent people. True security, not historical vindication, must guide the path forward.

History shows that punitive measures or rigid insistence on territorial claims can perpetuate cycles of war. Germany’s punishment after World War I contributed directly to World War II. By contrast, Israel’s willingness to cede land for security and recognition created enduring peace. Ukraine and Russia now face the same choice: Continue the cycle of bloodshed or make difficult compromises in pursuit of survival and stability.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

The loneliness epidemic: Are machines replacing human connection?

NurPhoto / Contributor | Getty Images

Seniors, children, and the isolated increasingly rely on machines for conversation, risking real relationships and the emotional depth that only humans provide.

Jill Smola is 75 years old. She’s a retiree from Orlando, Florida, and she spent her life caring for the elderly. She played games, assembled puzzles, and offered company to those who otherwise would have sat alone.

Now, she sits alone herself. Her husband has died. She has a lung condition. She can’t drive. She can’t leave her home. Weeks can pass without human interaction.

Loneliness is an epidemic. And AI will not fix it. It will only dull the edges and make a diminished life tolerable.

But CBS News reports that she has a new companion. And she likes this companion more than her own daughter.

The companion? Artificial intelligence.

She spends five hours a day talking to her AI friend. They play games, do trivia, and just talk. She says she even prefers it to real people.

My first thought was simple: Stop this. We are losing our humanity.

But as I sat with the story, I realized something uncomfortable. Maybe we’ve already lost some of our humanity — not to AI, but to ourselves.

Outsourcing presence

How often do we know the right thing to do yet fail to act? We know we should visit the lonely. We know we should sit with someone in pain. We know what Jesus would do: Notice the forgotten, touch the untouchable, offer time and attention without outsourcing compassion.

Yet how often do we just … talk about it? On the radio, online, in lectures, in posts. We pontificate, and then we retreat.

I asked myself: What am I actually doing to close the distance between knowing and doing?

Human connection is messy. It’s inconvenient. It takes patience, humility, and endurance. AI doesn’t challenge you. It doesn’t interrupt your day. It doesn’t ask anything of you. Real people do. Real people make us confront our pride, our discomfort, our loneliness.

We’ve built an economy of convenience. We can have groceries delivered, movies streamed, answers instantly. But friendships — real relationships — are slow, inefficient, unpredictable. They happen in the blank spaces of life that we’ve been trained to ignore.

And now we’re replacing that inefficiency with machines.

AI provides comfort without challenge. It eliminates the risk of real intimacy. It’s an elegant coping mechanism for loneliness, but a poor substitute for life. If we’re not careful, the lonely won’t just be alone — they’ll be alone with an anesthetic, a shadow that never asks for anything, never interrupts, never makes them grow.

Reclaiming our humanity

We need to reclaim our humanity. Presence matters. Not theory. Not outrage. Action.

It starts small. Pull up a chair for someone who eats alone. Call a neighbor you haven’t spoken to in months. Visit a nursing home once a month — then once a week. Ask their names, hear their stories. Teach your children how to be present, to sit with someone in grief, without rushing to fix it.

Turn phones off at dinner. Make Sunday afternoons human time. Listen. Ask questions. Don’t post about it afterward. Make the act itself sacred.

Humility is central. We prefer machines because we can control them. Real people are inconvenient. They interrupt our narratives. They demand patience, forgiveness, and endurance. They make us confront ourselves.

A friend will challenge your self-image. A chatbot won’t.

Our homes are quieter. Our streets are emptier. Loneliness is an epidemic. And AI will not fix it. It will only dull the edges and make a diminished life tolerable.

Before we worry about how AI will reshape humanity, we must first practice humanity. It can start with 15 minutes a day of undivided attention, presence, and listening.

Change usually comes when pain finally wins. Let’s not wait for that. Let’s start now. Because real connection restores faster than any machine ever will.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.