Best of The Program | Guests: Sen. Rand Paul & Mark Meckler | 1/26/21

At blinds.com, it's not just about window treatments, it's about you, your style, your space, your way.

Whether you DIY or want the pros to handle it all, you'll have the confidence of knowing it's done right.

From free expert design help to our 100% satisfaction guarantee, everything we do is made to fit your life and your windows.

Because at blinds.com, the only thing we treat better than windows is you.

Visit blinds.com now for up to 50% off with minimum purchase plus a professional measure at no cost.

Rules and restrictions apply.

Wow, I mean, Stu and I rolled up our sleeves and we got right to work to build back better,

which is something that just rolls off the tongue, especially if you've ever been to Davos or the World Economic Forum.

We concentrate on what the country is really facing.

And it is...

I have a sneaking suspicion it looks a little like socialism, but it is more of an oligarchy.

We talk about that.

Also, Rand Paul joins us, and we talk about the Convention of States.

And if two masks is better than one,

how many masks can you fit on your ears?

And really,

how many is better than two?

All on today's podcast.

You're listening to the best of the Blandbeck program.

We're still waiting on Senator Ann Paul to join us here

on impeachment, and he has just joined us now.

Doctor, how are you, sir?

Very good, Glenn.

Thanks for having me on.

You bet.

I want to talk to you about

what you say is an unconstitutional sham of an impeachment trial.

I don't understand

how you can have the vote in the Senate to

convict and remove when he's already removed.

Well, this is the whole point.

And I'm going to go to the floor in about an hour, and I'm going to force a vote on this today.

Republican leadership has made a deal and wants to make a deal with Schumer to allow a Democrat to preside over this hearing.

But my point is, if you're impeaching the president, the Chief Justice needs to be there.

Right.

But if the person is no longer president, then he's a private citizen.

It is an impeachment.

If someone's committed a crime and they're no longer the president, the Department of Justice has to accuse them of a crime and you go to a court.

But this is only for impeaching somebody.

And the Constitution says when you impeach and later on you can disqualify, but it's and.

It isn't or.

Right.

So if you can't impeach them any longer, we are doing something that has never been done to a president before.

It's going to divide the country further.

It's a huge mistake.

And it belies everything Biden supposedly says about unity.

No, this is the most divisive thing I could imagine the Democrats doing.

So

tell me why John Roberts isn't coming and isn't invited.

That doesn't make any sense.

Well, here's the question.

You know, if reporters were worth their salt, what do you think they ought to ask Schumer today?

Did you talk to John Roberts?

I guarantee they had a private conversation.

I guarantee Schumer called him up begging him to come over, and he said, well, the Constitution says I preside over an impeachment of the president and he's not the president.

Because the Democrats realize this is going to lessen the legitimacy or call into question the legitimacy of the proceeding.

But I guarantee that if they had a conversation, people should be, if reporters were worth anything, they would be pounding Schumer every day saying, did you talk to John Roberts?

What did he say?

Because John Roberts' opinion here is very important.

It goes to the very nature and legitimacy of this thing.

And with John Roberts not showing up, the Chief Justice not being here, I really think think that this is an illegitimate process from top to bottom.

So does the Constitution say the Chief Justice has to be seated in that role?

For an impeachment of the President.

So you could argue that John Roberts is actually right.

He shouldn't be here, but by not being here, he's calling into question the proceeding at all because there is no call for the impeachment of an ex-president of a private citizen.

So he's either the president or he's not.

So he's not the president.

So the Chief Justice shouldn't come.

But then it also calls into question the whole idea of doing it.

Now they say, oh, well, we've done this before.

Well, the country's been very divided in the past, and no one's ever been convicted.

No one's ever tried to try an ex-president because of how it would divide the country, but also because there's no provision for impeaching an ex-president.

So the other argument that I will make today is that if they're talking about inciting violence, there's a few Democrat words that we might want to evaluate.

number one I was there when the Bernie Sanders supporter almost killed Steve Scalise at the ball field he almost killed one of our coaches and you know what the Democrats were saying at the time they were saying the Republican plan for health care is you get sick and you die that to me sounds like an incitement if you're telling me that the Republicans are going to let me die you can see how you know there's all these kind of glorified movies of people committing violence when their children are going to die for not having insurance that is an incitement to violence but not one Republican ever called for Bernie Sanders to be impeached because we thought that was ludicrous.

And it wasn't necessarily his fault that this man reacted violently.

But they're going to have a different standard.

For the president who said, march peacefully to the Capitol, they're going to say, oh, no, that was incitement to violence and he's responsible.

But not Bernie Sanders, not Maxine Waters, not Corey Booker, who said, get up in their face.

So

it's a double standard, and people are going to see it for that.

But does it matter anymore?

I mean, it seems as though the fix is in between

big corporations and

government.

It just seems like the fix is in, and who cares about double standards anymore because

nobody ever does anything about it.

Nothing changes.

Well, the thing is, is I'm not one who wants to give up.

You know, I know people are very frustrated.

People are like, well, you know, if all this fraud happened and nobody's going to do anything, why should I even vote?

I'm of the opposite opinion.

We control 35 state legislatures.

The Republican Party does.

We need to beat those Republicans over the head until they fix the electoral system.

I'm already calling people in the Georgia legislature and saying y'all need to fix it because 2022, the Senate race will be back up again, and you need to fix your system where people can't vote twice, where you purge the rolls, and you need to fix it where you cannot solicit people.

You cannot use taxpayer money to send out applications to vote.

The individual should have to apply for a ballot.

Moveon.org shouldn't be able to apply.

Neither should the NRA.

It should be the individual applying for a ballot.

If you change the rules to do that and you get back to show your ID in person, I think there's a possibility we could get back to fair elections.

And I am going to keep fighting instead of, but it can't be done in Washington.

It never could have been done in Washington.

It won't be done in Washington.

We don't control anything in Washington now.

Plus, those of us who believe in states' rights think that elections should be

in the charge of the states.

And so, but I wouldn't give up on it.

We can fight and we should because if they get to where we do all mail-in ballots, we'll become like Oregon and now like Colorado.

They do all mail-in ballots there.

Who knows who the hell votes in those elections?

But guess what?

Only Democrats win.

I will tell you that this is the way I feel.

I'm just frustrated in talking about the double standard and pointing out what the news is saying and what they're calling, name-calling, because it's like

nothing's going to stop that.

I am with you 100% that we have got to get into our local communities and our states.

And people say, well, we can't fix the other states.

Don't worry about the other states.

Fix yours and shore it up and do everything you can to make sure that it is buttoned up and is,

metaphorically speaking, bulletproof as possible.

But the one reason I would say we have to call it the double standard is today, if I don't say anything, Republicans and Democrats will agree by unanimous consent to install a Democrat to preside over this proceeding, an illegitimate proceeding with an illegitimate Democrat overseeing it.

So I'm going to object to that and call out the double standard.

And I don't think we'll win.

The Democrats will win, but I'm going to force them to vote on it.

And my hope is that I get 40 Republicans to vote with me.

And if I do, that shows they don't have the votes to impeach at that point.

And so basically, the trial is over.

They can go through the manipulations.

But if 40 of us vote that this is an unconstitutional use of the impeachment power, then they're done.

They can do whatever the hell hell they want, but we will show them that we are going to stand strong.

But if I don't do this, our leadership will acquiesce with Schumer.

There'll be no vote, and they will go through the whole trial as if this sham is actually a real impeachment.

So I'd say we do have to fight them.

And I don't know.

I'm just not willing to give up on it.

I keep fighting them every day, whether they're in my party or in the other party.

I keep fighting on in a figurative way, Glenn.

Make sure we say that that fighting is figurative.

But so I don't know.

But we're going to to win some battles.

And really, come 2022, you're going to find that people are going to be quite unhappy with the unemployment that Biden's going to bring them as well.

It's stunning what he is doing and the effects that it will have on the economy.

Just stunning that

these things are happening.

Rand, you have an opponent in the Republican Party, Mitt Romney, who is really pushing hard for it, seemingly pushing hard for this impeachment trial.

And it really is only about making sure that Donald Trump can't ever run for office again.

Do you think you can hold 40 senators together?

Yeah, I think we do probably have 40.

There's a, you know, we have 48 total.

And I'd say there's five or six that have been leaning the other way.

But to tell you the truth, some of that five or six have been more critical of the

policy of trying to overturn the Electoral College and of the president's remarks, trying to get the vice president to intercede, that kind of thing.

And maybe when push comes to shove, and they also think about self-preservation, which

most politicians ultimately do, they may decide that, well, you know what?

I don't think this is really constitutional in the best.

It gives them an out.

They can still criticize the speech.

They can criticize the policy.

But then they can say, well, do we really want to get into the point of

impeaching former presidents?

My friend Thomas Massey, the congressman from Rollins, Rollins, Kentucky, tweeted out today.

He said, yeah, when we start doing it, line up, I want to do FDR.

Let me have FDR.

You know, it's just a crazy notion.

But no, I think we can.

I think we get 40.

And if I'm lucky, maybe we get 43, maybe 45 out of the 48.

So we won't get Romney.

He's already said he thinks it's constitutional.

It ought to be done.

But there are a couple of others that may just choose to criticize the president on the policy, but may say it's kind of crazy to impeach an ex-president.

One last topic I want to talk to you about, and that is, you know, we're hearing from everybody that we have to deprogram these Trump people,

and they're also using language that they're domestic terrorists, et cetera.

And it appears as though, I watched the hearing for the head of the Department of Homeland Security, he said domestic terrorism is number one on his agenda.

Now,

I remember the Obama years.

I don't think they're talking about the same kind of domestic terrorism that I would talk about.

This is one of the problems with the Patriot Act.

It can be so easily turned around and used on anybody.

You're exactly right.

You're exactly right.

But here's the good news, Glenn.

The good news is the camps that we will be sent to will be run by Katie Kirk, and she has that beautiful smile.

You will just take your soma, Glenn.

It won't hurt so much.

Right, right.

You take your soma, you'll drift off into some sort of opiate sleep, and they will

reprogram you.

It is funny, and that's the way everybody deals with it.

Is it at all a reality that this is a direction that they're seriously going in?

And I'm not talking about camps, but I'm talking about

labeling people like you or me as domestic terrorists.

Yeah, no, absolutely.

And I don't want to treat it just as a joke because the Patriot Act was no joke, and they used it not against terrorists.

They used it against average ordinary Americans.

In fact, not just some average ordinary Americans.

Everybody had a cell phone.

They collected all of our phone calls and then James Clapper lied about it.

And so, yes, it is very dangerous to see what happens.

And it's always important to read the details of these because They say, well, if we're going after terrorists, I'm like, well, yeah, I don't like that, you know, the people who blew up the courthouse in Oklahoma.

I'm fine with them getting the death penalty.

I'm fine with them being in jail forever.

Those are bad, murderous people.

You know, that is domestic terrorism.

But if domestic terrorism is, you know, according to George Stephanopoulos, I'm sure he thinks I'm a terrorist because I refused to accept that there was no fraud in the election.

So if it becomes an ideological test, I read something scary yesterday that there are people who want to bring back the ideas of sedition, the Alien and Sedition Acts that John Adams put forward, which basically was putting Americans, including one congressman, in jail for their speech.

Because people say you don't have a right to misinform people, but then who becomes the judge of what is misinformation, what is true information?

This is a scary world they're talking about.

So I don't want to downplay it at all.

We will have to, but the hard part, as you know, is they're going to point towards some really bad people who committed violence and say, Oh, you want to let that happen.

And we'll have to be able to be good enough in our response to say, No, we're talking about speech, and who's going to be the arbiter of true speech?

Yeah, I mean, if you look at the argument between

many of the founders during the Sedition Act,

they argued that you could, as press, they could even lie and make things up.

They had a right and the government had no place

in that argument at all to try to shut them down.

I mean,

they went as far in the correction of that

as, I mean, almost to the point of me being kind of uncomfortable.

when you first hear the ideas until you actually really read them.

Freedom of speech means that.

Freedom of speech.

And it's a platitude, but I think it's true that people say the answer for bad speech or disinformation is more speech, not less.

But there's something profound in that statement in the sense that

it's an elitist idea to believe that, you know,

if you allow Nazis to speak and say hateful things about people of other races, or you allow racists to speak, that somehow there aren't enough of us to combat that, that somehow we're weak and feeble-minded enough that those ideas will overcome us.

I don't think that's true.

In fact, I think America is more accepting

and more integrated in thought and race than we've ever been, whether it's churches or marriage.

You know, half the people I know, you know, I don't know what the percentage is, but I know lots of people everywhere around me who are married to people of other races.

That's a commonplace thing and a good thing.

And

we are a country that is not a racist country.

We are not a country that hates each other.

I just get so tired of these people saying what a terrible place America is, when in reality, we are better than we have ever been in my lifetime.

And gosh, think of the last 200 years, how much better it is to be alive now if you're a person of color or a person of a different faith or if you're a person that is somehow a minority.

Maybe you're even a person who wants to teach your kids at home.

That's actually even more acceptable for the most part.

Just a person.

Rand Paul, thank you very much.

Senator from Kentucky, Rand Paul, would be looking forward to your speech today and see how the Republicans line up.

This is the best of the Glenn Beck program, and we really want to thank you for listening.

All right.

Fauci has come out.

on double masking and I think this is as a public service.

We need you to hear this.

Listen.

A lot of folks are hearing now about double masking, wearing two masks or trying to get one of those N95 medical grade masks.

Do you believe that that's a

you know, it likely does because I mean, this is a physical covering to prevent droplets and virus to get in.

So if you have a physical covering with one layer, you put another layer on, it just makes common sense that it likely would be more effective.

And that's the reason why you see see people either double masking or doing a version of an N95.

Right.

I mean, he's somewhat just the obvious, right?

I mean, but I do think it's important that we take these steps.

See, you're wearing a mask?

Well, I'm wearing a mask, but I wanted to wear two masks.

Oh, yeah, we should probably wear two.

Now, what I really like about the mask that I got,

I have the Hayplex Global Ear Loop Disposable Face Mask that you're going to get in most places.

Pretty nice.

But what's nice is it comes with this certificate of safety.

It's been inspected by the Communist Party of China.

Oh, good.

So that means it's safe.

It's got that red star on it.

So, Glenn, I'm not a scientist.

I know you're a doctor.

I'm a doctor.

Can I ask you a question as a doctor?

Sure, you're a patient or just a concerned citizen.

You're not a doctor.

Dr.

Fauci.

It's not a doctor-to-doctor conversation.

I'll dumb it down.

Yes.

Yeah, I'll dumb my answer.

So, Dr.

Fauci said two masks would improve things.

Sure, sure.

I mean, I just got to ask, wouldn't three improve it more?

Well,

I mean, the science is pretty clear.

Four

would even be better.

And let me just put on now.

I got four masks on, and it's really, it's three, four is really four is the right number.

Oh, no, no, no, no, no, no, not the right number.

You just asked if it was better.

Oh, right, right.

So if there are better,

like it would be fine.

Yeah, I would say, I would say 10.

10.

We have four, five,

six, seven, eight, nine, ten.

I think ten

ten masks are even better.

Now, I am wearing ten masks and my ears are collapsed.

There we go.

Okay, so now you can see it's not comfortable on the ears, but I am perfectly safe

from any kind of spittle,

spittle, or anything like that.

Now,

you have 10 on?

Okay.

Oh, yeah, it's very hard to get on your ears.

You have to have big dumbo ears.

They don't support...

I have structural failings going on with my ears.

May I suggest if you have a neighbor or a friend with a nail gun,

you just put a couple of nails right behind your ears.

Not all the way in.

That would be madness, but you can't get them.

I can't get 10.

You shouldn't leave your house.

If you can't get tan on your face, you shouldn't leave your house.

Well, can I go with just my hands on the side of my head?

Well, it's not quite as good, but I guess you could.

Now, I'm putting on an extra, I'm putting on 11,

11 masks, which I think is even better.

Of course, much better than two.

Is it better than is 11 masks that much better than 10 masks?

Well, no, no, no, no.

I mean, it is, yeah.

I mean, obviously, it is better if you could put that on.

But 10 is really the place where your

ears start to collapse collapse because you're...

Now you're not a doctor.

I am.

But

there's no actual bone in your ear.

Dr.

Veck, what is the sweet spot for the number of masks?

Well, if I could, I would like to recommend...

I have 25 masks here.

25 masks?

I have 25 masks.

And if you just want 25 masks all over your face.

But like, my nose is breaking.

My nose is.

My nose was broken broken a long time ago.

Okay.

So,

you know, it doesn't.

Mine's quite as much as it is.

I'm having problems breathing through the 25th.

Yes, well, that is a problem.

You could suffocate from the 25th mask.

Okay.

But I would tell you that if you do suffocate

from the 25th mask

I just gotta take a second to breathe here.

You seem to be fading.

You, as a doctor, write down that you did die of COVID.

Because he's suffocating.

Well, I guess

you wouldn't be wearing the 25 masks if it wasn't for COVID.

So technically, it is a COVID death.

Here's the difference.

He has his mask

on his hands that he is trying to just

hold on to his face.

I have them on my ears, and that's why I am perfectly safe from any droplets that might come my way from Stu, even though Stu has had COVID and I have had COVID.

I hate to bring this up, but your eyes are not protected at all right now.

I could see your eyes.

Well, I think it would be smart to take half the masks.

And take half the masks and put those over your eyes

like so.

Well, see, this is why you're you're not a doctor, okay?

I think I'm still getting the protection of 12 or 13 masks on my mouth.

Well, that's not

another 11 on my eyes.

Is it?

It's not 25, is it?

I can't see you.

Well,

I'm not giving sign language.

I'm talking to you very clearly.

But I can't understand you because of all the masks.

Well,

for those of you who are doctors, let me just say that

I am a doctor of humanities, which

allows me to

treat any human condition.

I don't think that's true.

And let me just say that I believe the recommended number of masks on your face

is 25.

That would be the safest

that I think you could

I think I might pass out.

You do look like you're about to pass out.

The things we do

for you.

Every day.

Every day we come in and

we put our own bodies at risk for you

for science, man.

Are we going to get an award for that?

No.

Science magazine going to write that up?

No.

They might.

It might not be so flattering, but they might.

I would not say it's impossible.

I don't know.

I just feel like we need to know what the correct number of masks are.

Because, I mean, obviously, two is better than one to protect you.

Three would be better than two.

Four would be better than three.

What is the, is there any point that we stop this process?

Only what your ears can hold.

My ears can only hold about eight or nine masks.

Mine held 11.

11 seemed to be the breaking point.

Then I had to actually hold them onto my ears.

Because I feel like the best thing, what you need to do is basically come up with a band that goes behind the head.

Because they have some of those, like the N95 masks that I have have the strap that goes behind the head.

And it has two straps.

So what are we doing?

Can we,

I mean, look, this is such a, I apologize.

Look,

I'm in the Radio Hall of Fame, but my staff isn't.

No, okay.

They brought these stupid masks.

Tamara, can we do this right, please?

I would like the masks that go all the way around your head.

And I would like to see if we can get a hundred on.

Because

that would be better than 99.

It would be

100 times better.

Each one is a.

Wow, really?

I didn't know that's how it worked.

It's just a linear process.

That's exactly how it works.

A hundred times better.

Wow, you are a doctor.

Well, I'm a scientist more than a doctor, you know, which requires all kinds of math.

math so again so you think

that you want the masks that go behind the head and are n95 masks or you want you are you okay with surgicals well i think surgicals would be okay n95 if you could get a hundred and ninety five's you'd be

a hundred percent better

you're

no that's what it works

but here uh good god man will back up the company 195 it's like talking it is like seriously, it's like talking to an ant when I'm talking to you about science.

And

I feel like we try to put 100 of these things on our head, we're gonna have like cone heads afterward.

It's gonna

well, it's gonna squeeze

you're not willing to sacrifice for you left your eyes totally unprotected during that experiment.

What who knows what is what entered your eyes or your ear holes?

Your ear holes must be protected too, you know.

This is the best of the Glenbeck program.

It's finally 2021 with all of your worries behind you in that stink we called 2020.

And now, what do we have to look forward to?

A new year.

Why not start it off right with a new grill?

Not just any grill, make it a rectek.

It is the ultimate in grilling with real wood.

You will grill more often and you will make the best food you've ever made.

Plus, you can spend more quality time with your family and friends while your grill is doing all of the work because you can monitor it from an app on your phone.

Imagine cooking every meal to perfection every time, whether it's grilling, smoking, or even baking.

RekTech will rise to the challenge.

Amazing smart grill technology.

The RekTech monitors everything you cook in it to the tiniest, minutest detail, making sure to adjust temperature as needed.

Follow RekTech on all their social media and sign up for their newsletter, but I want you to A, B, compare a RekTech with all the other grill contenders contenders out there.

This is the best.

R-E-C-T-E-Q.com.

That's rechtech.com.

We have Mark Meckler on with us.

Mark is the founder and president of the Convention of States project, which is something that really hasn't been talked about in the last four years.

I think a lot of people have thought, oh, well, Donald Trump is in office, and so it's going to be fixed.

No, this is not going to be fixed by anybody.

This has got to be fixed by us as individuals as close to home as possible, certainly not in Washington.

Mark, welcome back to the program.

How are you?

I'm good.

It's great to be with you, Goan.

So, you know, the problems are getting bigger and bigger since we last talked.

The numbers of the states, we need 34 states to call a convention, 38 to ratify any amendments that would be proposed.

What do our numbers look like for those states that actually want to

make some changes?

Yeah, it's changed a lot since we last spoke, since I was there with you.

I think we're at six states at that point.

Now 15 states out of the 34 are on board.

This year we have 21 states considering.

I think we're going to look at adding between six and ten states this year, so we'll be well past the halfway mark.

So

you said you had 16, so you'll be at 26, and you need 34.

Is that feasible here in the next year?

Do you think 34 could be feasible?

I would say in the next two years, you have to get enough of the legislatures that are considering it.

And so, and I'm, you know, like my real goal right now to get to 34 is by 2024.

And I say that because we have 31 legislatures that currently have both houses controlled by Republicans.

The Republican legislature is, of course, much more likely to want to take power away from Washington, D.C.

We have Minnesota that's a split house, so we just have to flip one house.

I think we can do that.

I think Virginia is going to flip this year.

And our activists are engaged in flipping these state houses all over the country.

So what about the states that are controlled right now by Republicans?

What's holding them back?

Well, unfortunately, the number one thing holding them back is what I would describe, sadly, as the fringe right.

And what you have is young folks from an organization might recognize the name from way back when, called the John Burke Society.

And they come into these legislatures and they try to scare the legislators.

And fear sells.

And what they say is, we're going to have a runaway convention and we're going to lose our Constitution.

And my response to that is: are you watching what's going on in Washington, D.C.?

Do you think you're living under the original Constitution?

I fear what's going on in Washington, D.C.

right now, and the Marxists who've actually taken control far more than I fear anything that the citizens could do.

You know, and I fear that it's not the Marxists that are taking control.

I think the Marxists are

the hand that we are supposed to watch and are the enforcing hand.

I think we have the government colluding with giant corporations now, and we're living in an oligarchy.

But maybe that's...

No, I'm in absolute agreement, Glenn.

I think we're seeing something unusual, which is we have absolute cooperation based on philosophical alignment between an oligarchy and people who believe in Marxism in government.

So it's an unusual situation to see that voluntary cooperation.

Yeah, and it doesn't make sense if you understand how business works.

It just doesn't make sense unless you understand it's an oligarchy that is up at the top.

So what are the states that are close that our listeners could get involved with to try to pressure the states?

I would say the states that are immediately in the docks are West Virginia is hot.

North Carolina is hot.

South Carolina is hot right now.

Idaho, just in the last few weeks, I've been in Idaho, Montana, and Wisconsin.

All of those states looking very strong.

And the reality is, wherever they are, even in the states that have passed, for example, in my home state of Texas, the grassroots are still very active.

They're active in helping other states.

They're active in maintaining the resolutions in their own states.

And they're active in other issues.

Like right now, our grassroots across the country, all five million of them are active in ballot integrity and election reform.

So, Mark, answer the question seriously, because it is something that I heard a lot and concerned me a great deal until I I talked to you.

Answer the question about a runaway convention where we lose our rights and we lose our Bill of Rights.

Sure.

There's a couple answers.

I'm going to start with the end answer and the simplest one, which is a convention is only a suggesting meeting.

In other words, people are going to come out of there with suggestions and they're going to send those suggestions out to the states for ratification.

It takes 38 states to ratify.

That's the highest bar in the entire system of American governance.

Very difficult to reach.

And that means only 13 states can stop anything.

So I'm going to posit the one that I hear most often, Glenn, which is we're going to lose our Second Amendment.

It takes only 13 states to not ratify.

Not ratifying means they simply don't take it up.

I can tell you in 24 states in the United States of America, you can carry a handgun into the Capitols.

I do all the time.

I'm armed everywhere I can be.

In 15 states, you can actually sling an AR across your back and sit in the gallery, not something that I do.

But the idea that those states are somehow going to ratify the repeal of the Second Amendment, it's absurd and ridiculous.

And I'll make the same offer to your listeners I always make.

My personal email, mmechler at cosaction.com.

If you believe in the runaway convention myth, send me the amendment you believe would be ratified by 38 states in the list of 38 states.

I've made that offer to millions of people.

I've never received an email.

You talk about a fork in a road

that we're at, and I think you're absolutely right.

You say

the first turn is the country comes apart, secession, civil war, violence.

Because

we can't physically divide.

As much as I wish we could just say, hey, California, live the way you want to live.

But that's really the second one,

which is we go back to the way we were where states have great powers to do whatever they want

and they can live whatever they want.

But I'm not, I don't have to pay for California's mistakes, and I don't have to live that way in Texas.

We can just

divide by almost natural selection, if you will.

People just congregate with like-minded people.

But I don't think that's going to happen either.

You say, Look, I think we're at a fork in the road, as you describe.

I call it the great decoupling.

It's taking place in America, and I think it's inevitable.

It's unstoppable.

You know, culturally, we're dividing.

Politically, we're dividing.

We're dividing commercially.

We're starting to do business with different firms and different ways of doing business.

I think that's going to continue, and I don't think it's bad.

One way you said that we decouple is secession.

I don't see how that happens without violence and destruction and the loss of our place in the world.

In 1787, the founders were facing a dangerous world.

Not just Great Britain, but France and Spain, potential worldwide enemies that would have loved to have taken over the colonies, they understood that they needed to unite.

They actually didn't like each other.

This is something that we mistake when we look back at the colonies.

We think they were so united.

They united against a greater common foe, but they didn't trust each other.

There was sectarian Christianity was one of the main things that divided them.

Trade, diverse loyalties.

We've never actually really been unified in the way people think as a country.

The South is different than the North.

The East is different than the West.

There's actually a lot of disdain out there between the parts of the country.

It's okay.

In fact, our founding form of government came out of that.

Federalism is a government designed for people who don't like each other that much, don't really get along, but know that they have to be united around a certain set of things, otherwise they're going to be too weak in the world.

That's the beginning, and we need to go back to the beginning.

And the tool that takes us back there is a convention of states.

We take the power away from the federal government.

We give it back to the people in the states.

We let California be California and Texas be Texas.

So what are the one thing that the states that are joining?

What is it they're looking to change?

Is there a common thread that all of them are saying, yeah, we're going to, we really think we should propose this?

Yeah, there are three common threads, and this is what the convention is designed to address.

One is anything that would put the government's fiscal house in order, that would limit the fiscal power of Washington, D.C.

So that would include things that people would be most familiar with, like a balanced budget amendment being imposed.

Most of the states have them.

They're not all healthy because of them, but they do better because of them.

It would be also things like spending and taxation limitations could be imposed under that.

The second is term limits.

Both of these are 85% issues.

85% of the American public, regardless of party, are in favor of term limits.

And I would argue not just for Congress, Glenn, but also for the judiciary, also for staffers and bureaucrats.

This is how we clean out the deep state.

And then the last thing is anything that would limit the scope and the power or the jurisdiction of the federal government.

A lot of our problems came out of the reinterpretation of the Commerce Clause.

There's no authority in the Constitution for the Department of Education, Energy, the EPA, the USDA, the FDA.

All these agencies come from Supreme Court quote-unquote interpretations that gave this power to the federal government.

And the founders told us themselves: if the Supreme Court's out of control, hold a convention, propose amendments, and restrain the Supreme Court and overturn those things.

So, those are the things that we're finding that the states have wide agreement about.

You know, I've been pushing for almost a

sanctuary state kind of attitude until we get to a convention of states to where where the

states that are in conservative hands and want to conserve the Bill of Rights, anytime the federal government is doing something that it doesn't have the right to do, we're a sanctuary state for the Bill of Rights.

We're not going to do that.

We're just not.

But that's going to cost these states an awful lot of money.

If they decide to not participate, you're going to see banking,

big business, and the federal government attack these states

and try to just put them out of business and make it economically really painful for them.

Do the states even have a chance to

stand against what we have going on now?

I think they do.

And by the way, I'm in favor of that.

I've talked to our mutual friend Daniel Horowitz a lot about this.

Our grassroots are in favor of that.

It's not an easy road.

We've never had an easy road to hoe, those of us who love and fight for freedom.

It is doable.

I think there's a commercial aspect to it.

You've discussed the oligarchy and the government and their alignment.

Part of this is an oligarchical problem.

And what I mean by that is we are beholden now, you and I, and all conservatives, to commercial interests that don't like us, that want to shut us down.

We've seen this, obviously, with Parler and others being scraped from the web.

And so I'm in the process of building something called the stack.

We need, as conservatives, everything that we need to operate in a digital world from the cloud to the ground, everything in between, that would include conservative banks, conservative web hosting, conservative email services.

If we don't have that, ultimately all of us will be controlled and erased from the digital world.

This is fantastic.

Tell me you have some big backers on this.

I do.

There are billionaires across the country that are very interested in this.

And we are in early stage planning because this has really been motivated.

I've been saying this for years, but it's really been motivated by what happened to Parlor.

And so I'm talking to folks behind Parlor and a lot of other people, big money folks and technologists on the right who want to make this happen, who believe it has to happen.

We're currently working on the email services provider, the

customer resource management, what's commonly called CRM.

We're working on banking right now.

I have a bank arranged.

We're working on merchant account providers so people can take credit cards.

All of it is in the works currently.

Good.

We must have that.

I'm very concerned about the banks, and I think that's going to start happening soon.

Mark, keep us up to speed on both of these things, will you?

Absolutely.

It's my pleasure.

Thank you.

That's Mark Meckler.

He is with the Convention of States, and you can follow him and contact him.

Conventionofstates.com.

Follow him on Twitter at MarkMeckler.