How to Utterly Obliterate the DC Monopoly With Article V

May 26, 2017

WRITER

Former Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) joined The Glenn Beck Program on Friday to discuss his new book Smashing the DC Monopoly. Although the Constitution established a framework for limited federal power and expansive personal freedoms, self-interested politicians and activist court rulings have seriously imbalanced the system. Coburn's book argues for an Article V amendments convention as the best solution to limit the power and scope of the federal government.

"The big problem in our country is chaos," Glenn said Friday on radio before introducing former Senator Coburn. "The reason why so much of this is happening is because we have violated the Bill of Rights, we have so weakened our Constitution [that] the balance of power is broken."

The Constitution's Framers anticipated a time when self-interested officials would be unwilling or unable to act in the people's long-term interest. So they included the safety feature of Article V that allows the people to propose amendments to the Constitution through the actions of their state legislatures.

Coburn writes in Smashing the DC Monopoly a statement made by patriot William Barton about Article V:

This clause ought to be written in letters of gold. We ought to observe the excellencies of the Constitution. There's a fair opportunity for amendments provided by the states, but this clause should be written in letters of gold.

"Glenn, I think our country's unsettled, and people know something's wrong," Sen. Coburn said.

Smashing the DC Monopoly hits bookstores everywhere May 30, 2017.

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

GLENN: Senator Coburn has written a book smashing the DC monopoly. The title tells you everything you need to know. Using Article V to stop freedom and to stop a run away government. Welcome to Dr. Tom coal better than, a former U.S. senator. Hi, Tom.

TOM: Hey, Glenn.

GLENN: I found your book fascinating, and let me take you to a couple of places. I'm going to start at the beginning of the book. I'm going to take you to William Barton. Tell the story of William Barton.

TOM: Actually, there were three people involved in this. One was colonel George Mason who actually raised the first issue associated with ever knowing was there ever a country that voluntarily gave power back to its citizens. And what do they did or did not. So that started the conversation with Barton and bringing forth Article V, the subsection that we talk about. There's a lot of stories about Barton in the history. But his leadership in terms of this issue and restoring our freedom.

GLENN: Well, he said, you wrote in the book, he said, "This clause ought to be written in letters of gold. We ought to observe the excellencies of the constitution. There's a fair opportunity for amendments provided by the states. But this clause should be written in letters of gold."

TOM: Well, that's right and the reason that clause is there is because right now where we found ourselves, that's the only solution that's big enough for the problem in front of us.

GLENN: So would you agree with me that the chaos that we are feeling right now -- because I think we're having a crisis of chaos. I think that the only time that people reach out for somebody who will make it stop, you know, more of an authoritarian progressive kind of player, is when they are afraid, and I don't think they're afraid of ISIS or war as much as they're afraid of the loss of the western way of life. And I think --

TOM: Glenn, I think our country's unsettled. And people know something's wrong.

GLENN: And would you agree that something's wrong, the problem comes from the fact that we haven't adhered to the constitution, so we're rutterless.

TOM: Not only have we not adhered to it, we've had Supreme Court to change its meaning to where we no longer have the structure that would allow us to maintain the freedom and the opportunity to fix ourselves, to set ourselves right. You know, what we're seeing today is people talking about the problems we have. A recent poll I think said 84 percent of Americans don't trust the Federal Government. Rightly so. Why would you? There's a million dollars of debt per family out there; right?

So how do they pay that off? For the millennials, there's 1.7 million unfunded liability, not counting the debt.

GLENN: I don't think that's a bad number that 84 percent of people distrust the government. I think you go back to George Washington's time, I'll bet you that number was in the 90s if they had taken polls. George Washington said you shouldn't trust government. Treat it as fire.

TOM: But they're also saying is we don't think it works anymore. As a matter of fact, the millennials don't know how it's supposed to work because the education has been so disruptive innocent teaching them, undermining the principles of our country that we're built upon.

So I don't worry that people don't trust the Federal Government. I worry the fact what that will lead to is no confidence in anything that comes out of there.

GLENN: Well, you have a problem now where 49 percent of conservative millennials, conservative millennials, 49 percent believe in freedom of speech but that the government should determine what that speech should be.

TOM: Yeah, and that's scary because we've had our hole in education establishment stolen in terms of freedom and the principles that built this country. And the Judeo principle Christians that allowed us to do that in the first place. So that's all been stolen. And so we've had mind-bending. Not that there are not a lot of young, great people out there. But they've been taught -- you know, it's not just for you to listen to a difference of opinion. Well, the only way you really grow intellectually is to listen to a difference of opinion and actually think about it. And now we have this whole generation that doesn't think you want to -- they want to go my hair's on fire, qua listen to you, even though you have sound reasoning and good logic in your discussions. That's a symptom, though, Glenn, of the problem. The problem is we've abandoned limited government. We've undermined personal responsibility, and we're suffering the consequences of it.

GLENN: You're writing the book about Samuel Jones, why Article V solution. Why it exists. Can you tell us a little bit about that story?

TOM: Well, Article V solution exists because it was forced to exist. As a matter of fact, it was the only thing in the constitutional convention that never had heavy faith. Now, most people don't realize if you look at Madison's notes, he did copious notes on the whole convention. And the only aspect of that convention that didn't have vigorous debate, vigorous hard, fighting debate before they came to agreement was Article V. And the very aspect that they would come around to allowing a restoration of principles. Actually, the history is that our founders knew that republics wouldn't live long. They knew.

So they came around to the idea that we have to put a way for us that at least put a salvage echo in there.

GLENN: Tom, I sure appreciate your taking on this topic and explaining it to the American people. "Smashing the DC Monopoly: Using Article V to Restore Freedom and Stop Runaway Government". It's available in bookstores everywhere. It has -- it has tremendous history, including a story about Jefferson Davis. After the war, Jefferson Davis said we should have just used Article V. It led to too much bloodshed. If we used Article V, we wouldn't have had the civil war.

TOM: They almost did, Glenn. They almost did.

GLENN: Yeah. Smashing the DC monopoly and if you can, get involved in the Article V movement in your state. It is -- it just passed in Texas, and it's starting to gain momentum, and it's critical. They'll never give themselves a limit on their power in congress. Never. You need to do it, and it needs to happen through convention of states to change the constitution and put a few things in there like -- I don't know you spend the money that you have. Not our children's money. Article V convention. And the name of the book, again, is smashing the DC monopoly by Tom coal better than. Tom, thank you very much. Appreciate it.

TOM: God bless.

GLENN: God bless.

Shocking Christian massacres unveiled

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