COS TAKE ACTION: 1,000 People Needed at Texas State Capitol on Jan 31

January 19, 2017

Writer

Texas Governor Greg Abbott will deliver his State of the State address at the Texas State Capitol in Austin, Texas, on Tuesday, January 31, 2017.

The Texas Convention of States Project (COS) team hopes to have an overwhelming presence at Governor Abbott’s State of the State address, thanking him for his support and making clear that Texans support invoking Article V of the US Constitution and calling a Convention of the States by passing HJR39 and SJR2.

The governor has been a vocal supporter of a Convention of States and their resolution, making it a legislative priority in 2017.

Be among the 1,000 supporters filling seats in the Texas Capitol House Gallery on January 31.

>>> SIGN UP TODAY

As Texas Goes, So Goes the Nation

Mark Meckler, one of the nation’s most effective grassroots activists and a national leader for the Convention of States Project, recently visited The Glenn Beck Program to talk about the important role Texas will play in exercising Article V of the US Constitution.

"The most important state is Texas. Texas is big. Texas leads the way in the South and the Midwest. Always, other states look to Texas. It's really extraordinary what's happened in the state of Texas," Meckler said. "We are the very first priority outside of the Texas Constitution."

The Answer to the Cancer

For decades now, the federal government has overreached its constitutionally-established boundaries, unchecked by an entitled, ineffective Congress. The Founders knew the federal government might one day become drunk with the abuses of power. The most important check to this power is Article V, which gives states the power to call a convention for the purpose of proposing amendments to the Constitution. By calling a Convention of the States, we can stop the federal spending and debt spree, the power grabs of the federal courts, and other misuses of federal power. The current situation is precisely what the Founders feared, and they gave us a solution we have a duty to use.

Be a Part of History

Help achieve real change and be a part of history by attending Governor Abbott's State of the State address. Texas can help lead the way for a two-thirds majority of states to apply for a Convention of the States, a full-proof process for real change that Congress has no authority to stop.

>>> SIGN UP TODAY

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program or read the transcript below:

GLENN: Stage 19 in the Mercury Studios in Dallas, Texas. Mark Meckler is joining us. He's with Article V ConventionOfStates.com. Welcome, Mark. How are you?

MARK: I'm glad to be here. Always better when I'm in Texas.

GLENN: Yeah, I know.

We were just talking about this historic opportunity. You know, the confirmation hearings are happening this week, and a lot of liberals are really freaked. And I'm not talking about the ones that are in Congress, because I think they'll play to anybody who will give them their power. But the average person is, for the first time in eight years, afraid of exactly the same things we were afraid of. Right?

MARK: It's really interesting how the narratives converged. You know I'm from California, and suddenly in California you have people on the left talking about nullification and succession, which apparently was the province of the rightwing crazy fringe, is now the province of the leftwing crazy fringe. Everything comes full circle.

GLENN: Correct. So I'm talking to my friends who are telling me great things from inside of the Trump administration, that they're gonna make some real changes, etc., etc. And I keep saying, but they're not structural changes. That is just reversing legislation or reversing executive orders. We have to have Constitutional changes. Otherwise we're gonna play this back and forth every four or eight years.

MARK: You know, I'm in the fight for my kids and my grandkids and our posterity, and you're exactly right. Even if we presume that we're gonna get great stuff out of this administration, it's temporary because the pendulum will swing. You know we all look at the map, the red map with excitement after the election. If you take that same map and look at it and only count voters age 18-35, the entire map is blue. So, you're gonna see some demographic shift in this country over time, and if we don't make the structural changes that protect liberty, then we're in trouble. And that's what the Founders knew, right. They knew it was about structure and not about people.

GLENN: So tell me some of the new things that are happening. You know, when we talked to you it was just before the election.

MARK: Yeah, it was right before the election.

GLENN: So now, tell me what's happening on the ground. Is there more steam to get there, less steam?

MARK: Yeah, there's a lot more steam. And I think because the public sentiment in the country is just continuing to be anti-DC. And now, again, this weird alignment, both sides are anti-DC. Folks on the right, we've always been skeptical of concentrated power at the federal government level. Folks on the left are jumping on that bandwagon talking states rights and federalism for the first time. So, you have this sort of unity of narrative. Different purpose coming out of the narrative, but a unity of narrative.

GLENN: What's the purpose from the left?

MARK: Well, from the left it's to defend themselves against Donald Trump and federal overreach. And then a lot of the things that we say, conservatives, we want to defend ourselves against the federal government all the time, in the image of the Founders. The left, it's about personality and people. So now they fear Trump, they fear a Republican Congress, they fear these people coming through the confirmation hearings, they fear a conservative Supreme Court, so now they're on the bandwagon, at least temporarily, about federalism.

GLENN: So, do you trust the people that are getting involved. Because, you know, we have been very leery of a highjack, which last time you were here you explained just cannot happen. It cannot happen because of the laws and the rules of Article V. But are there any states like California that, I guess they would be alone, wouldn't they? I mean, if they came up with their list of things and it wasn't the same, then --

MARK: Well, and they will come up with their list of things, and they will attempt to introduce them at any convention. And if they're not germane, if they don't fit the rails that have been set for a convention, somebody from Texas or North Carolina will stand up and object that it's not germane, and it will be ruled out of order.

GLENN: Texas could say, "We move to -- we move for secession." And it would --

MARK: It's not germane. Right. And so that will be objected to, and we'll move on.

You know, we saw sort of the ultimate example of that this week. I thought it was really interesting to see of all people Joe Biden shut down the protests over the count on the electoral college, right?

And he basically said, "Look, there are rules. It's game over. We follow the rules. It's an institutional thing."

And he shut down the protests in Congress over the electoral count. So rules work, institutions work. This is the way our country is set up. We've survived a lot of crises. We know how to do this kind of stuff in this country.

GLENN: So what are the states that are moving -- where do you need help?

MARK: Well, I think, to me, the most important state -- I'm not saying it just because I'm here, is Texas. Texas is big. Texas leads the way in the South and the Midwest. Always other states look to Texas. It's really extraordinary what's happened in the state of Texas.

They've named the resolution in the Senate SJR2, the second joint resolution. That's a priority. The first one is reserved, by the way, for Texas constitutional matters, specifically in Texas. So we are the very first priority outside of the Texas Constitution.

By the way, that same thing is happening all over the country. In Utah, we have a low priority number. Just found out, in Missouri, we've got a low priority number. Those are three states that for me are really important right now: Texas, Utah, and Missouri. Likely to happen early -- very high priority states for us.

GLENN: So what is the word? Because I have heard that here in Texas, there are many in the G.O.P. who are, again, kind of the progressive arm of the G.O.P. saying, "Oh, it's not so bad. We don't need to have this now." Are we -- who is winning on that argument?

MARK: I think we, those who say we need to have it now, are winning. But I think there are those who are saying it. And to be fair, there are even some good conservatives who are saying that. They're excited by the fact that Trump has taken office. They're hearing the same things you and I are hearing from the transition team. What I say about that is, with all due respect to the Trump administration, be -- don't be Trump drunk. And what I mean by Trump drunk is, if you think things are going to change, then you're not looking at Congress, right? This is the exact same Congress that didn't stand against Obamacare. This is the exact same Congress, same leadership that didn't stand against illegal, unconstitutional executive amnesty. So the idea that these guys are suddenly going to get a spine -- all we have to do is look what they tried to do with the ethics office. Look what they just tried to do with the pork barrel spending and earmarks. Same Congress. So the idea that suddenly we're going to have a magical transformation in Washington, DC -- if you believe that, then you're Trump drunk.

GLENN: And anybody who is a real conservative should -- even -- if I had Ronald Reagan in the office, I would still be for Article V. And I would think Ronald Reagan would be for Article V as well.

MARK: In fact, he was. And he spoke about it, and he was in favor of Article V.

Now, look, Reagan, the great conservative icon, with everything he tried to do and everything he said he was going to do was such a great communicator of conservative ideals. The federal government grew under Ronald Reagan's watch.

GLENN: Yeah.

MARK:: He specifically set out to do away with the Department of Education. He appointed a secretary to do that. It grew under his watch. So the idea that somehow Donald Trump or any other individual is going to magically transform the federal Leviathan is just fantasy.

GLENN: You can't. Because -- I mean, even if -- if you've ever run a company, and you're like, "I've got to shut this division down," that division will spend all of its time trying to find ways to show you, you cannot shut it down.

MARK: Absolutely. So, you know, Glenn, that's another thing. When I talk about being Trump drunk, this idea that 1.35 million federal employees are simply going to roll over, give up their jobs, give up their benefits -- I mean, this is not to be critical against them. It goes against human nature. They're not going to be in favor of shrinking their own agencies, just not human nature.

GLENN: Okay. So how do people get involved?

MARK: ConventionofStates.com. And what we need is people to get serious. Go there. Sign petition. Volunteer to be involved. That's the most important thing they can do.

GLENN: What do you do to get involved?

MARK: So primarily what you do is we generate the people who are interested in helping. I mean, there are literally now 2.1 million volunteers in the field. We need people who are willing to just help send the emails, make the calls. Make sure people show up for legislative hearings. You know, we're going to have the governor here in Texas at the end of the month, we intend to have over 1,000 people there. So that takes people calling. You can't just send emails. And one of the things our organization believes in is high touch. We definitely use technology, but we believe in reaching out and building this network of people.

GLENN: Thank you. Thank you for everything you're doing. I think you guys are absolute patriots and the answer to the cancer that is eating us. Over 100 years ago, the progressives introduced a cancer that was designed to eat the Constitution. It's time to look for the pill that the Founders gave us if the Constitution were being eaten. And it's Article V. Thank you so much.

MARK: Thank you for your support, Glenn. I appreciate it.

GLENN: It's ConventionofStates.com. Volunteer. ConventionofStates.com.

Silent genocide exposed: Are christians being wiped out in 2025?

Aldara Zarraoa / Contributor | Getty Images

Is a Christian Genocide unfolding overseas?

Recent reports suggest an alarming escalation in violence against Christians, raising questions about whether these acts constitute genocide under international law. Recently, Glenn hosted former U.S. Army Special Forces Sniper Tim Kennedy, who discussed a predictive model that forecasts a surge in global Christian persecution for the summer of 2025.

From Africa to Asia and the Middle East, extreme actions—some described as genocidal—have intensified over the past year. Over 380 million Christians worldwide face high levels of persecution, a number that continues to climb. With rising international concern, the United Nations and human rights groups are urging protective measures by the global community. Is a Christian genocide being waged in the far corners of the globe? Where are they taking place, and what is being done?

India: Hindu Extremist Violence Escalates

Yawar Nazir / Contributor | Getty Images

In India, attacks on Christians have surged as Hindu extremist groups gain influence within the country. In February 2025, Hindu nationalist leader Aadesh Soni organized a 50,000-person rally in Chhattisgarh, where he called for the rape and murder of all Christians in nearby villages and demanded the execution of Christian leaders to erase Christianity. Other incidents include forced conversions, such as a June 2024 attack in Chhattisgarh, where a Hindu mob gave Christian families a 10-day ultimatum to convert to Hinduism. In December 2024, a Christian man in Uttar Pradesh was attacked, forcibly converted, and paraded while the mob chanted "Death to Jesus."

The United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) recommends designating India a "Country of Particular Concern" and imposing targeted sanctions on those perpetrating these attacks. The international community is increasingly alarmed by the rising tide of religious violence in India.

Syria: Sectarian Violence Post-Regime Change

LOUAI BESHARA / Contributor | Getty Images

Following the collapse of the Assad regime in December 2024, Syria has seen a wave of sectarian violence targeting religious minorities, including Christians, with over 1,000 killed in early 2025. It remains unclear whether Christians are deliberately targeted or caught in broader conflicts, but many fear persecution by the new regime or extremist groups. Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), a dominant rebel group and known al-Qaeda splinter group now in power, is known for anti-Christian sentiments, heightening fears of increased persecution.

Christians, especially converts from Islam, face severe risks in the unstable post-regime environment. The international community is calling for humanitarian aid and protection for Syria’s vulnerable minority communities.

Democratic Republic of Congo: A "Silent Genocide"

Hugh Kinsella Cunningham / Stringer | Getty Images

In February 2025, the Allied Democratic Forces (ADF), an ISIS-affiliated group, beheaded 70 Christians—men, women, and children—in a Protestant church in North Kivu, Democratic Republic of Congo, after tying their hands. This horrific massacre, described as a "silent genocide" reminiscent of the 1994 Rwandan genocide, has shocked the global community.

Since 1996, the ADF and other militias have killed over six million people, with Christians frequently targeted. A Christmas 2024 attack killed 46, further decimating churches in the region. With violence escalating, humanitarian organizations are urging immediate international intervention to address the crisis.

POLL: Starbase exposed: Musk’s vision or corporate takeover?

MIGUEL J. RODRIGUEZ CARRILLO / Contributor | Getty Images

Is Starbase the future of innovation or a step too far?

Elon Musk’s ambitious Starbase project in South Texas is reshaping Boca Chica into a cutting-edge hub for SpaceX’s Starship program, promising thousands of jobs and a leap toward Mars colonization. Supporters see Musk as a visionary, driving economic growth and innovation in a historically underserved region. However, local critics, including Brownsville residents and activists, argue that SpaceX’s presence raises rents, restricts beach access, and threatens environmental harm, with Starbase’s potential incorporation as a city sparking fears of unchecked corporate control. As pro-Musk advocates clash with anti-Musk skeptics, will Starbase unite the community or deepen the divide?

Let us know what you think in the poll below:

Is Starbase’s development a big win for South Texas?

Should Starbase become its own city?

Is Elon Musk’s vision more of a benefit than a burden for the region?

Shocking truth behind Trump-Zelenskyy mineral deal unveiled

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy have finalized a landmark agreement that will shape the future of U.S.-Ukraine relations. The agreement focuses on mineral access and war recovery.

After a tense March meeting, Trump and Zelenskyy signed a deal on Wednesday, April 30, 2025, granting the U.S. preferential mineral rights in Ukraine in exchange for continued military support. Glenn analyzed an earlier version of the agreement in March, when Zelenskyy rejected it, highlighting its potential benefits for America, Ukraine, and Europe. Glenn praised the deal’s strategic alignment with U.S. interests, including reducing reliance on China for critical minerals and fostering regional peace.

However, the agreement signed this week differs from the March proposal Glenn praised. Negotiations led to significant revisions, reflecting compromises on both sides. What changes were made? What did each leader seek, and what did they achieve? How will this deal impact the future of U.S.-Ukraine relations and global geopolitics? Below, we break down the key aspects of the agreement.

What did Trump want?

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Trump aimed to curb what many perceive as Ukraine’s overreliance on U.S. aid while securing strategic advantages for America. His primary goals included obtaining reimbursement for the billions in military aid provided to Ukraine, gaining exclusive access to Ukraine’s valuable minerals (such as titanium, uranium, and lithium), and reducing Western dependence on China for critical resources. These minerals are essential for aerospace, energy, and technology sectors, and Trump saw their acquisition as a way to bolster U.S. national security and economic competitiveness. Additionally, he sought to advance peace talks to end the Russia-Ukraine war, positioning the U.S. as a key mediator.

Ultimately, Trump secured preferential—but not exclusive—rights to extract Ukraine’s minerals through the United States-Ukraine Reconstruction Investment Fund, as outlined in the agreement. The U.S. will not receive reimbursement for past aid, but future military contributions will count toward the joint fund, designed to support Ukraine’s post-war recovery. Zelenskyy’s commitment to peace negotiations under U.S. leadership aligns with Trump’s goal of resolving the conflict, giving him leverage in discussions with Russia.

These outcomes partially meet Trump’s objectives. The preferential mineral rights strengthen U.S. access to critical resources, but the lack of exclusivity and reimbursement limits the deal’s financial benefits. The peace commitment, however, positions Trump as a central figure in shaping the war’s resolution, potentially enhancing his diplomatic influence.

What did Zelenskyy want?

Global Images Ukraine / Contributor | Getty Images

Zelenskyy sought to sustain U.S. military and economic support without the burden of repaying past aid, which has been critical for Ukraine’s defense against Russia. He also prioritized reconstruction funds to rebuild Ukraine’s war-torn economy and infrastructure. Security guarantees from the U.S. to deter future Russian aggression were a key demand, though controversial, as they risked entangling America in long-term commitments. Additionally, Zelenskyy aimed to retain control over Ukraine’s mineral wealth to safeguard national sovereignty and align with the country’s European Union membership aspirations.

The final deal delivered several of Zelenskyy’s priorities. The reconstruction fund, supported by future U.S. aid, provides a financial lifeline for Ukraine’s recovery without requiring repayment of past assistance. Ukraine retained ownership of its subsoil and decision-making authority over mineral extraction, granting only preferential access to the U.S. However, Zelenskyy conceded on security guarantees, a significant compromise, and agreed to pursue peace talks under Trump’s leadership, which may involve territorial or political concessions to Russia.

Zelenskyy’s outcomes reflect a delicate balance. The reconstruction fund and retained mineral control bolster Ukraine’s economic and sovereign interests, but the absence of security guarantees and pressure to negotiate peace could strain domestic support and challenge Ukraine’s long-term stability.

What does this mean for the future?

Handout / Handout | Getty Images

While Trump didn’t secure all his demands, the deal advances several of his broader strategic goals. By gaining access to Ukraine’s mineral riches, the U.S. undermines China’s dominance over critical elements like lithium and graphite, essential for technology and energy industries. This shift reduces American and European dependence on Chinese supply chains, strengthening Western industrial and tech sectors. Most significantly, the agreement marks a pivotal step toward peace in Europe. Ending the Russia-Ukraine war, which has claimed thousands of lives, is a top priority for Trump, and Zelenskyy’s commitment to U.S.-led peace talks enhances Trump’s leverage in negotiations with Russia. Notably, the deal avoids binding U.S. commitments to Ukraine’s long-term defense, preserving flexibility for future administrations.

The deal’s broader implications align with the vision Glenn outlined in March, when he praised its potential to benefit America, Ukraine, and Europe by securing resources and creating peace. While the final agreement differs from Glenn's hopes, it still achieves key goals he outlined.

Did Trump's '51st state' jab just cost Canada its independence?

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Did Canadians just vote in their doom?

On April 28, 2025, Canada held its federal election, and what began as a promising conservative revival ended in a Liberal Party regroup, fueled by an anti-Trump narrative. This outcome is troubling for Canada, as Glenn revealed when he exposed the globalist tendencies of the new Prime Minister, Mark Carney. On a recent episode of his podcast, Glenn hosted former UK Prime Minister Liz Truss, who provided insight into Carney’s history. She revealed that, as governor of the Bank of England, Carney contributed to the 2022 pension crisis through policies that triggered excessive money printing, leading to rampant inflation.

Carney’s election and the Liberal Party’s fourth consecutive victory spell trouble for a Canada already straining under globalist policies. Many believed Canadians were fed up with the progressive agenda when former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau resigned amid plummeting public approval. Pierre Poilievre, the Conservative Party leader, started 2025 with a 25-point lead over his Liberal rivals, fueling optimism about his inevitable victory.

So, what went wrong? How did Poilievre go from predicted Prime Minister to losing his own parliamentary seat? And what details of this election could cost Canada dearly?

A Costly Election

Mark Carney (left) and Pierre Poilievre (right)

GEOFF ROBINSPETER POWER / Contributor | Getty Images

The election defied the expectations of many analysts who anticipated a Conservative win earlier this year.

For Americans unfamiliar with parliamentary systems, here’s a brief overview of Canada’s federal election process. Unlike U.S. presidential elections, Canadians do not directly vote for their Prime Minister. Instead, they vote for a political party. Each Canadian resides in a "riding," similar to a U.S. congressional district, and during the election, each riding elects a Member of Parliament (MP). The party that secures the majority of MPs forms the government and appoints its leader as Prime Minister.

At the time of writing, the Liberal Party has secured 169 of the 172 seats needed for a majority, all but ensuring their victory. In contrast, the Conservative Party holds 144 seats, indicating that the Liberal Party will win by a solid margin, which will make passing legislation easier. This outcome is a far cry from the landslide Conservative victory many had anticipated.

Poilievre's Downfall

PETER POWER / Contributor | Getty Images

What caused Poilievre’s dramatic fall from front-runner to losing his parliamentary seat?

Despite his surge in popularity earlier this year, which coincided with enthusiasm surrounding Trump’s inauguration, many attribute the Conservative loss to Trump’s influence. Commentators argue that Trump’s repeated references to Canada as the "51st state" gave Liberals a rallying cry: Canadian sovereignty. The Liberal Party framed a vote for Poilievre as a vote to surrender Canada to U.S. influence, positioning Carney as the defender of national independence.

Others argue that Poilievre’s lackluster campaign was to blame. Critics suggest he should have embraced a Trump-style, Canada-first message, emphasizing a balanced relationship with the U.S. rather than distancing himself from Trump’s annexation remarks. By failing to counter the Liberal narrative effectively, Poilievre lost momentum and voter confidence.

This election marks a pivotal moment for Canada, with far-reaching implications for its sovereignty and economic stability. As Glenn has warned, Carney’s globalist leanings could align Canada more closely with international agendas, potentially at the expense of its national interests. Canadians now face the challenge of navigating this new political landscape under a leader with a controversial track record.

Glenn's Show Prep