By The Right Scoop


Mark Levin was on Glenn Beck’s radio show this morning to discuss his new book The Liberty Amendments and to explain how the Constitution provides a way for the states to save America without federal intervention whatsoever.

Listen:

UPDATE: Or you can Watch the same interview via Beck’s Blaze TV:

About 

Blogger extraordinaire since 2009 and the owner and Chief Blogging Officer of the most wonderful and super fantastic blog in the known and unknown universe: The Right Scoop


Comment Policy: Please read our new comment policy before making a comment. In short, please be respectful of others and do not engage in personal attacks. Otherwise we will revoke your comment privileges.


NOTE: If the comments don't load properly or they are difficult to read because they are on the blue background, please use the button below to RELOAD DISQUS.

  • rapidcraft

    God Bless the Great One!

  • John Allen

    Thank God for Mark Levin

  • Steve Angell

    Good interview. Great to see Glen Beck finally realize what a horrible candidate Mitt Romney really was. How much Romney was just like Obama.

    • Richard McCreedy

      Let’s be honest, they were all pretty awful candidates. Just like 2008. We haven’t put up a staunch conservative, who can actually communicate conservative principles, in forever. I have no problem with Glenn shilling for Romney when it was basically down to three men, because between he, Newt, and Santorum, there was no great choice.

      • http://boogieforward.us/ K-Bob

        But Beck played his part in keeping conservatives out of the race, too. After having Palin speak at his giant, Rally-to-nowhere in DC, he then proceeded to stop giving her air time and said some things that were fairly negative (like the Laura Ingraham sort of nonsense).

        Then he talked up Jon “I support barack” Huntsman.

        So when it comes to endorsing candidates, Beck’s track record makes Ann Coulter’s look positively Solomon-like.

        • Calvin_02

          The way that Huntsman presented himself on the campaign was not the same way he governed. He probably was one of the more conservative choices, actually. He also probably would have been elected. They may have turned Romney into some sort of extremist, but I don’t think they could have done that with Huntsman. I think your memory is faulty, though, I don’t think Beck said much of anything about Huntsman Jr. You are talking about Huntsman Jr., correct?

          • http://boogieforward.us/ K-Bob

            Yes, he definitely talked up Huntsman Jr. And as ivan wrote, it was probably due to Beck’s enormous respect for Huntsman Sr. Once HUntsman began to campaign in earnest, and started sounding fairly progressive, Beck simply stopped mentioning him.

            • Calvin_02

              So what’s the harm done then? I think you’re mistaken in using the word “endorsing” though. Speaking positively of someone is different than saying “go vote for this person”. You may be right that he said some nice things about him but I’m fairly certain he never endorsed him, unless you have audio that proves otherwise.

              • http://boogieforward.us/ K-Bob

                The only harm was to Palin. And while it’s a bit harsh to pin that on Beck, it just goes to show that these people need to be more careful in their decisions about candidates. I have no idea why they all just ignore what appears to be a hugely popular candidate in order to put someone else forward.

                Newt and Santorum both had their vocal detractors, but both had a huge following, and we all know primaries are far more contentious than the general. But too many pundits decided to go nuclear on those two, even while declaiming we need “real conservatives.” So we ended up with Romney.

                Especially when they didn’t really do their homework on that “someone else.” And I didn’t mean to write “endorse” in that paragraph. That wasn’t where I was trying to go, but I wrote it, so I own it, I guess.

        • ΘWΞNΛY

          Can you please supply some audio of him saying negative things about Sarah Palin and also provide some audio of him talking up Jon Huntsman. I have listened to almost every radio show for the last 6 years and cannot recall either instance. Thanks.

          • ivan

            I think we have the tendency to confuse the father and the son[I don’t mean the Trinity] Beck is friendly with the father of the son who ran for president not Jon Huntman. He only mildly criticized Palin in some matter but practically always spoke well of her. As for the stealing material dispute with Levin and Savage, I think Beck merely accessed the same sources that they did providing similar wording to their books in certain respects. They do agree about 90% of the time so this would also make for similar thoughts in their books.

            • http://boogieforward.us/ K-Bob

              You got it all exactly right on all points.

              The problem with Beck’s “light criticism,” though, is that it came at exactly the wrong time. Kind of like when a room is really noisy, and you’re joking with some friends and you are in the middle of being the second or third guy in your group to say, “yeah, man, don’t be such a d*ck!’ but unfortunately that’s when one of those weird, total silences of about two seconds happens, and you are suddenly the only one speaking—and that’s all anyone hears.

              Right around that same time, Eric Erickson at Red State was burnishing his credentials for CNN, and he had also decided to “lightly criticize” Palin. Suddenly, during a fairly quiet news week, these two, big media guys had started a “thing,” and it snowballed, with Laura Ingraham and Ann Coulter piling on. What a pathetic way to reward their listeners.

              Coulter endorsing Romney and Beck endorsing Huntsman (And I totally understand his motive there, although not his wisdom) just made it all go from bad to worse.

              (EDIT: I wrote “endorse” for Beck with Huntsman. I didn’t mean to write it, but there it is. I know he never endorsed anyone during the primary. None of those guys ever do that. I’ll leave it unedited, though, so you can all remind me of it. I need an editor.)

          • http://boogieforward.us/ K-Bob

            http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0411/53008.html

            I can’t find audio. That’s hard to search for. Note i didn’t say Beck “endorsed” anyone. (Well, that was wrong: turns out I did write that. But I wasn’t going to. I screwed up.) What happened was that beck went cold on Palin, then for a few shows he talked up Huntsman.

            Then Huntsman began his early meltdown, endorsing gay marriage and telling everyone what a good guy barack was, and Beck just stopped talking about him. I think later on, after Huntsman had pretty much done himself in, Beck pointed it out ,and said Huntsman, Jr. was not the future face of the GOP or something.

            It was never a big deal. But the fact that he went cold on Palin and then decided to pitch, however briefly, the son of a man he greatly admires, just underscores the fact that he’s not so good with current events or reading the desires of the base.

            That doesn’t mean he’s a bad guy, or not good to watch. I have The Blaze on TV several hours per day, and I never watch Fox. I admire what Beck has done. I’m just not an admirer of his political savvy.

      • Steve Angell

        Newt or Santorum would have gotten the base fully on board and won.

        Five GOPe have run for President since the GOPe Nixon was forsed to resign. All five lost. This is easy. Run a GOPe you lose run a Conservative and you win five times in a row.

  • deTocqueville1

    Great interview. The more people who hear about this the better.

  • sjmom

    Top down isn’t the only reason the libs wouldn’t go along with Mark’s idea. There’s another more devious; they know if people learn the truth about them they know they’d lose every election from here out.

    • Russ

      Not necessarily. Plenty of people see the world the way “Progressives” do–they’re misguided but that’s how they see it. I can see a future where the electoral college might tip in favor of Dems for a long, long time–particularly if they import 10-20 million new voters and Texas goes. However, with the Liberty Amendments passed, the States would have the tools in their hands to constrain and contain the insanity. And in that scenario, I think the more the federal government overreaches, the more the States would punish it. We’re talking about fundamentally restoring the balance of power to the people and the state governments–where it was for the first 100 years of the Republic–and we must get this done ASAP. We have to catch the Framers vision and not be constrained by our experience of American government in most of our lifetimes. There was a time when it was better than this, and it can be again.

      • sjmom

        I’m in favor of what Mark is discussing and only commenting on him saying the libs won’t allow it because everything has to be from the top down. Hence, my comment.

        • Russ

          Roger. Some are definitely misled but there are others who are fully on board with the libtard/progressive agenda and would vote the same way even if all the worst parts of everything they do were laid bare. I’ve met too many people at work & elsewhere who are happy with an expansionist federal government, I guess. They embrace DC doing exactly what De Tocqueville warned us about. They’re the same people who built these crazy HOAs that dictate every aspect of your life, in your own home, “for the greater good,” and charge you exorbitant fees to do so.

          • sjmom

            LOL.. Just told my son today I don’t ever want to live where there is HOA.

        • JimMcKee

          That’s the beautiful part… they don’t get to “allow it” or not… the states are fully authorized to act WITHOUT Congressional approval.

    • Joanne Christie

      Bull’s Eye sjmom…….People need to get themselves informed as to what this ADM/Gov’t. is doing to this Country.

  • nibblesyble

    Yeesh between this and Phil preaching,I am not getting anything done!

  • Russ

    One state CAN start it! All we need is one state legislature to pass a resolution calling for a convention and it’s begun! Here’s an example application for convention: http://dqdqcwd2kvidt.cloudfront.net/sites/default/files/Application%20for%20a%20Convention%20of%20the%20States.pdf No I don’t work for these people.

  • Joanne Christie

    We The People in every State starting at the Grass Roots Level need to get the message out, If we don’t there will be Hell to pay for not taking action to Take Our Country Back. The D. of Corruption is full of liars & thugs who are looking out only for their own ass^^. They do not care if we live, die or are trampled on.

  • TheresaAK

    Thank you Mark and Glenn….

  • kssturgis62

    I missed this. Thanks for Posting RS !!! JUST Fantastic !!!

  • Russ

    Limbaugh, Beck, & Hannity go for Levin’s Liberty Amendments…that’s the superfecta united!

  • Tranacria

    Happy to see egos take a backseat to substance. Thank you, both!

  • Michael Tavoliero

    Mark Levin did a great job. But would he please continue and include federal land and an amendment to restore the constitutional protections against everything done from Roosevelt and beyond?

    • College Geek

      Levin isn’t running the convention, it’s up to us! Best way to push for that is to propose one to your state delegates if we ever have this convention.

  • jdbaird

    I finally quit being cheap and ordered the book, I did get a pretty inexpensive copy though, it only cost me $12. My initial reaction was to reject it as hopeless, being my pessimistic self, but after this interview and the great posts on this site concerning it, I look forward to seeing what it’s all about. I’ve read all of Mark’s books and have liked them, so I don’t expect this one to disappoint.

    • RighteousCrow_JustCaws

      Good job, jd – we all have the choice to swim…or sink. Rent the Discovery channel 2006 series: The Revolution if you get a chance (on Netflix). It reenacts beautifully the wobbly course pursued by the colonists as they eventually secured their freedom. No internet then – should be less blood spilled today, as the masses eventually get on board.

  • Guest

    Did Glenn Actually say he was not for Mitt Romney……. This is why I don’t listen to him anymore. 90 Days of trashing Newt Gingrich to help Romney take the lead.

    So sad is his ego sometimes. Newt was ahead in the polls. We the People put Newt in the lead. Glenn would have no part of it.

    Isn’t that what Glenn Fights Against! Washington elites telling us what to do or think. Well Newt was in the Lead and Glenn used his show to influence voters to not pick Newt.

    We ended up with Romney, end of story!

    http://www.examiner.com/article/carney-obama-to-implement-more-executive-action-after-navy-yard-shooting

  • They Call It News

    Did Glenn Actually say he was not for Mitt Romney……. This is why I don’t listen to him anymore. 90 Days of trashing Newt Gingrich to help Romney take the lead.

    So sad is his ego sometimes. Newt was ahead in the polls. We the People put Newt in the lead. Glenn would have no part of it.

    Isn’t that what Glenn Fights Against! Washington elites telling us what to do or think. Well Newt was in the Lead and Glenn used his show to influence voters to not pick Newt.

    We ended up with Romney, end of story!

    • jdbaird

      No, he was saying that he was for him during the election, but he’s not going to play the GOP “he’s the only one who can win” game anymore. I think a lot of people have learned their lesson in that respect including myself.

      • http://boogieforward.us/ K-Bob

        Indeed. The next Presidential election is going to be a real eye opener for the Republicans.

    • nibblesyble

      I agree with you, he turned me off when he was against Newt, and it took a while to forgive.

      • http://boogieforward.us/ K-Bob

        He wasn’t the only one. Stacy McCain was strongly, emphatically anti-Newt. It was pretty bad. Kind of like how Ace and company became strongly anti-Perry. The problem was (and you and I have been here before), that the right thing to do was support anyone willing to be openly conservative.

        So going in, I was for Palin, then when she decided not to run, I was for Cain and Bachmann or Perry (sort of), then they fizzled, so I was for Newt and Santorum. Anyone willing to actually sound conservative, and defeat Mitt. But the anti-Newt, anti-Perry, anti-Santorum folks (who were all cranks about it, frankly) took their ball away and stormed home, leaving us with Romney.

        I’m not putting up with that any more. That’s why I’m writing in Allen West every chance I get. I’m not letting the “antis” decide my choice.

        I’m not “anti” anyone. I’m just pro West.

        I could be pro Cruz, if it comes down to it. But so far, I’m sticking with West.

        • nibblesyble

          It is funny, I still get a bit miffed at how we were railroaded by those that I thought should know better, brings those emotions up. But I am with you now….no more! West all the way!!

    • ΘWΞNΛY

      Beck was not for Romney during the primaries, but once it was down to Obama vs Romney the choice became clear to him, just as it did to many, many others. It is that game which he claims that he will no longer play. Of the final 7 or so, Beck’s order of preference was something along the lines of Bachmann, Santorum, Perry, Romney, Gingrich, Paul, Huntsman. With the exception of Ron Paul (whose Islam views disqualified him) this also basically ordered as least Progressive to most Progressive. It is not rocket science.

      • nibblesyble

        Yeah, not buying that, Beck was absurd at some points in his hatred for Newt. He at one point said we as Newt supporters were racist because that could be the only reason we liked him over Obama because they were essentially the same. Considering that Romney had the same bloody health plan as Obummer…yeah sorry will never buy it. Newt was no where near as progressive as Romney and would have taken the media to task every single time they opened their liberal pie holes.

      • Steve Angell

        Officially Beck did not endorse Romney.

        But Beck defended Romney with a passion and absolutely refused to look at Romney’s record or even acknowledge that Romney Care was Obama Care.

        Beck fought each of Romney’s enemies and LDS voted for Romney at up to 90%. Proving in a way the LDS church is a cult. Or at least they act cultish when it comes election time.

        • JimMcKee

          93% of African Americans voted for Obama in 2012. Are they, then, also a cult?

          • Steve Angell

            They are not a religion or orgnization. Thus not a cult.

            Harry Reid gets many GOP LDS votes why he wins elections. I am LDS but it really upsets me how lazy many in the church are. They are taught to praise other members of the church and unless you join you are damned. I do not believe that and the church has backed away from teaching that. But the belief is strong. Many will vote for any LDS member just because they are LDS assuming God will do his work through that member.

  • RobertMahoney

    I wonder how that crow tasted for Mark. All those years of back biting Beck, calling him a back-bencher etc.

    Glad Mark finally decided to grow up and get over himself.

    • http://boogieforward.us/ K-Bob

      He felt that Beck was using his material unattributed. Nothing makes a pundit or journalist madder than plagiarism. It may have been a misunderstanding, but Breitbart also had his issues with Beck, so Beck needs to deal with that.

      If anyone had to humble himself, it was Beck, and Levin was willing enough to set aside the grievances.

      • nibblesyble

        Exactly!

      • Calvin_02

        Savage has also claimed that Beck steals from him. Seems more likely to me that Levin and Savage were extremely jealous of Beck. I’ve never heard of any concrete evidence that Beck has stolen anything from Levin, unless general observations about the leftist tendencies of the White House have become Levin’s own intellectual property.

        Levin has said some low things about Beck, like talking about how when Beck was throwing up on his own shoes, he was campaigning for Reagan. Beck has never said anything about Levin (on the air) until this last month when he mentioned that he extended an olive branch to Mark Levin. I would say the bigger man was Beck.

        • College Geek

          Does it really matter who the bigger man is at this stage in our nation’s decay? All that matters is they’re both patriots with the same objectives, who cares about what they did years ago? Tyranny is real and it’s in America, old grievances need to be put aside.

          That’s also why Libertarians and Conservatives need to put aside our little differences and try to fix our Republic.

          • Calvin_02

            I agree, but I’m not gonna let people whitewash the past, though. I wasn’t going to say anything about who did what but it’s been said now, so I’m responding.The truth is, Mark Levin said some very petty things about Beck, and Beck never said anything about Levin.

            • http://boogieforward.us/ K-Bob

              Levin did not say “petty” things. He had a major disagreement over policy and position, and stated it emphaitcally. Beck is chasing down the Libertarian rabbit hole, and Levin knows that’s not a solid place to be, politically or philosophically. But they are both wrong on this score: The reality is, Beck isn’t so much as “becoming Libertarian” as he is “taking over the Libertarian movement.”

              Beck is still really more of a conservative than he is a libertarian. So he’s carving out an exception within libertarianism from which to host his network’s viewpoint. That way he can excoriate a man like Bill Krystal, without worrying if it will play well among Republicans at large. Because Beck is definitely done with Republicans.

              Levin is very close to Beck on most viewpoints, and has said so, even to the point of defending Beck. So there’s no “whitewashing the past.” The difference is that Levin isn’t completely done with Republicans, because he knows a third party is not the answer. In a wacky sort of way, they are both right.

              This is why Levin began telling us about the Article Five process. That’s the best answer we have before us. Not Libertarianism, and not Republican party or third party.

              • Calvin_02

                The 5pmer this, the 5pmer that, talking about Beck throwing up on his shoes while he (Levin) was campaigning for Reagan, you don’t think that Levin has said petty things about Beck? Just do a google search for “Mark Levin hates” and you’ll see “mark levin hates glenn beck” in the drop down box. Even Scoop has said that when Levin goes after Beck it sounds like jealousy and back biting. Me and Robert are not the only ones who think that Levin has said some petty things bout Beck.

                • http://boogieforward.us/ K-Bob

                  You are confusing Levin’s stupid “schtick” with his more serious commentary. You have to separate all of these folks from their schtick when criticising them, because frankly, 90% of what they say in schtick-mode is pure crap.

                  So I’m not elevating that crap to the level of actual discourse. I’ve already stipulated that when Levin goes into self-aggrandizement mode I turn off the radio. And by “off” I mean “off.” I don’t listen to any more of that broadcast.

                  Hugh Hewitt harasses his guests mercilessly. Even when they aren’t on the air with him. He also makes fun of all sorts of people in radio. “Pots and Pans bangers,” for example. You don’t start there in a critical analysis of Hewitt, though. He’s actually one of the smartest guys in talk radio, and probably the best interviewer I’ve ever heard.

                  I wish he wasn’t such a squish, though.

                  But I wouldn’t include his “pots and pans bangers” statements in my analysis of why I say he’s a squish. Neither should we fuss about Levin’s schtick.

                  Look, none of these guys are saints. It’s a waste of time trying to compare them, really. One day I’ll be in total agreement with them, the next I’m throwing banana peels at the radio.

                • Calvin_02

                  eh, I don’t think talking about how Beck used to be a drunk (in a negative fashion) is schtick. Neither is all the other stuff. Beck saying “Do I really want to vaporize you? ….YES I DO!!!!” is clearly schtick. If Levin’s attacks on Beck were mere schtick, people wouldn’t write blogs about Levin being divisive or his being petty and envious.

                  The only comparison I’m making is this: Levin called Beck petty names and Beck did not call Levin any names. Other than that, I don’t think any of them are saints.

          • 1860ridesagain

            Exactly and thank you.

            The greatest characteristic of the framers was their ability to set small differences aside and work out what was best for the country. Franklin said it best: “We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately.”

            Had the democratic party not split in the fashion they did in the late 1850’s Lincoln would not have come to power in 1860 and the rest could have been history. By dividing the party between Bell, Douglas and Breckenridge, they ultimately divided the country.

          • http://boogieforward.us/ K-Bob

            No, it definitely does not matter who is the bigger man. And you’re right about working with Libertarians. The problem is that the neo-libertarians have made that difficult.

            (The neos are the ROn Paul faction. The ones running around calling all conservatives neo-cons and making all the noise about Israel. Regular Libertarians are much more reasonable. Regular Libertarians do have a few problems, though: in particular, many are anti-border. Meaning not only do they support “amnesty,” but they don’t want border enforcement. Conservatives will NEVER go for any of that.)

        • http://boogieforward.us/ K-Bob

          Savage is a nutball. You can’t really tell what he thinks because he’ll go out and do the opposite.

          But Beck definitely distorted Bretibart’s case with the Pigford story, regarding the Shirly Sherrad “racism” moment. He deliberately made Bretibart out to be an intentional racist, and refused to let Andrew a) provide the complete recording, and b) explain his position. This, while simultaneously raiding Breitbart’s staff for employees to build his network.

          So whatever Beck was, it was not “the bigger man.”

          Bottom line, all of these pundits have to protect their market share at all costs, and also their ideological space in the listening audience. When Levin goes into his self-aggrandizement mode, I turn off the radio. That’s when he sounds like a complete a$$. But Levin mines his own area of expertise, and only Hugh Hewitt has a similar thing going (among radio talkers). If Hewitt didn’t have a day job teaching Con Law, and wasn’t as mushy as is sometimes, he’d be in that same tier as Levin and Beck (who are tied for third place, if you take away the money guy, Ric Edelman, who sort of has his own third-place tier, but isn’t a “politics” guy).

          • Calvin_02

            .As far as poaching employees goes, I say so what, they were competitors. That’s what competitors do. I think the people who run Breitbart now have more or less come to peace with Beck. The Sherrod thing was a bad move on Beck’s part, but I never said he was perfect. You were the one who said that if anyone needed to humble himself, it was Beck. Levin has said nasty things about Beck, and Beck never said anything about Levin. Beck extends an olive branch. Sounds like Beck did what Levin should have done in the first place. Again, I’m not saying that Beck is perfect, but in this particular instance, he was the bigger man.

            • http://boogieforward.us/ K-Bob

              I think I’ve clarified that Beck was not “the bigger man,” above. It’s simply two men with nearly equal audience share in radio coming together to get something done. You’re the one making out one guy as somehow better than the other. My position all along is that neither can claim that honor.

              • Calvin_02

                All I’m saying is that it was a petty feud that only Levin was involved in and Beck took the first step that should have been taken by Levin.

                • http://boogieforward.us/ K-Bob

                  All I’m saying is that neither one can claim that honor. That, and we should not put our trust in princes. Not even princes of the airwaves.

    • geoffrobinson

      I really don’t care one way or the other as long as they are on the same page now.

      • RobertMahoney

        I agree. I heard it put one time that when there are only 5 of you living in Babylon, there are just some things you don’t fight about.

        • http://boogieforward.us/ K-Bob

          heh. Is that a Babylon Five reference?

          • RobertMahoney

            No. Biblical.

    • Chester Simms

      Compared to Mark Levin, Glenn Beck is a back-bencher.

      • http://boogieforward.us/ K-Bob

        Does Levin have his own network now?

        • Lynn Roland

          I’m afraid not. Mr. Levin is the President of Landmark Legal Foundation and participates in animal rights activities, along with being very involved in the Ronald Reagan Library. Not to mention his past work in the Reagan administration……

          Mark Levin is more of a “teacher/professor” kind of guy – his sarcasm and wit are sharp. I enjoy his show immensely. Not that I have anything against Glenn Beck at all – to each his own. Whatever negative vibes that were between the two may hopefully turn into beautiful music!

  • wraith67

    I would think sucession would be a more viable idea. Can have a clusters of state bind together voluntarily, and let the lefties have the coasts and try to figure out how create their socialist utopias on their own … with their own money.

    • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFb6NU1giRA Booker

      Mark talked about that yesterday. If you secede, you will have to have another constitution and … to be blunt, it would be very messy. There is no room for the neo-confederates in this movement. Remember, the constitution talks about “a more Perfect Union” and “domestic tranquility”. Secessionism shouldn’t be a part of that.

      • http://boogieforward.us/ K-Bob

        Indeed. It only took nearly 800,000 dead, but we managed to show that secession of states from the union isn’t going to work.

        There’s a type of secession the might, work, though. Some counties of Maryland and some of Colorado want to secede from their respective states and form new states that aren’t totally dominated by the big cites. I haven’t looked into it enough to have an opinion, but my gut says marginalizing the power of big, Democrat voter plantations is probably a good thing. So cutting Chicago, New York, and LA out of their respective states would help restore those states to health, and also the union.

        But as I say, it needs looking in to. It might be unconstitutional for all I know.

        • wraith67

          We did not see that secession isn’t going to work, only that one side can impose it’s will on others. Jefferson talked about States ‘amicably’ leaving the union – obviously that wasn’t a foreign thought to any of the founders…having to adopt the 3/5ths rule to get everyone to agree to come together “willingly” (maybe voluntarily) might be a clue. The idea that this was a permanent forevermore union with no exit clause is nowhere in writing or discussion. The stakes were different then, now leftists would only oppose a separation because they would not be able to plunder the resources of industrious peoples.

      • wraith67

        It wouldn’t be any messier than it was, and what is the alternative? Every 4, 8, 12 years one side takes over and rams pure garbage down half the country’s throat? To not break up is guaranteeing another civil war. A new constitution can say “a more perfect union” it just doesn’t have to be with communists and socialist who would like to live parasitically off the industry of others. Maybe you should read the Declaration again. This isn’t going to work.

  • stage9

    Well, we have to do something. Sitting here whining about it everyday isn’t getting it done. Someone needs to step up and take charge!

    • Betsey_Ross

      I’ve proposed to our new hopeful delegate that Virginia should the starting point. He agrees. Also our Lt. Gov and Gov. nominee would probably be on board. Git’er done.

  • http://boogieforward.us/ K-Bob

    We all have to take Beck with a grain of salt. He’s a typical creative genius (no, not an all-around genius, but definitely a creative genius) in that he never rests and never stays on one project. His ability to see what’s coming in the near future is very good, however, and he’s been right most of the time, even when missing many details.

    The problem comes when Beck wanders from warning us about what’s coming, to the topic of, “What to do about it right this minute.” Each time he begins a push into activism, he ends up running away from it, but only after making one or more awful choices in position, policy, or who to support. Thankfully he rarely blows it on all three at once.

    He also follows history more closely than he does current events. So he can tell you more about George Washington’s horses than he can about the facts in the Zimmerman case. (He STILL claims Zimmerman “followed” Martin, and stated that Zimmerman’s choice to be in Neighborhood Watch was kinda creepy.) So you just can’t take Beck as a serious source of information about the news or the law.

    But that’s okay, because Beck tells you to do your own homework, and not take his word for it. Besides, as I wrote above, that’s not his area of genius. His creative genius is much more like a man he openly admires: Walt Disney. Beck is building a network, and so far I’m quite pleased with it. He works on the long time scale, and that’s why it all is coming together so well.

    So Beck will still say things that make you wonder is he’s really interested in defeating the left. He’ll drive you crazy, and in areas where you really, really care (like with Sarah Palin) he’ll break your heart. But for all of that, I wish him great success. We need people willing to do what he’s doing with his Blaze media and network.

    Just know that things like this are never a smooth ride.

    The good news is, he’s on board with the Article Five process.

    • Steve Angell

      Well put.

      Glenn Beck is into becoming the next CNN or Walt Disney. He may well succeed and make more money than Rush. But he will never top Rush on radio.

      • Calvin_02

        No, and he’s admitted as much.

  • John Davidson

    The main problem is the enactment of the 17th Amendment. Start there and the rest will fall back into place.

    • froggy19510

      You area aman after my own heart. I have been preaching the ills of the 17th amendment. We need to repeal the 16th as well.

      • John Davidson

        Lots of changes have to be made, but without making the Senate accountable to the states is a high priority. We also have to get more actively locally for I notice they are telling their people what the Feds have been requiring them to do. Lawyers at every meeting claiming we can’t do this or we can’t do that. Socialist Commissars.

      • Steve Angell

        And everything else that passed in 1913.

        • froggy19510

          That wouldbe a good start but then we need to go on and defund all the crap FDR got through then kill the “Great Society”.

          • Steve Angell

            Then get some fair judges to get rid of all the horrible laws these high on power farces wrote into law.

            Judges have no power to write law according to the constitution but they do it illegally all the time anyway.

            • froggy19510

              It will take time but if we all work at it, it will happen.

  • Davida Burns

    Beck is 5 years ahead of all the other conservative talking heads. Nobody ever had his back on CNN or FOX, save Bill O’Reilly. Beck’s Fox show taught so much and opened up so many doors for these other yahoos. They are just now jumping on the bandwagon. Makes me kinda mad!!!!

    • http://boogieforward.us/ K-Bob

      His admiration for O’Reilly is well earned. O’Reilly is probably a better man than his TV persona would indicate. I still can’t stand to watch the guy, though.

      • waffle_anna

        I would say that BillO is more of a controlling persona on TV… he doesn’t want his show to derail, which is understandable. But he needs to stop attacking Tea Party conservatives such as Sarah Palin.

    • Steve Angell

      There is a very good reason he is number 3 or 4 on radio.

      Rush and Hannity are much better. Levine will top Beck as well.

      Beck is not really at heart a conservative. He is almost GOPe. Just look at who he hires for “Real News” his biased against conservatives “news” show.

  • Michael Tavoliero

    Thanks for your comment, College Geek. Of course, he is not running the convention nor is it his responsibility. My point is Mark Levin is offering a process which returns us back to our founding document, the constitution, with suggested topics. The issue of federal property ownership is a huge constitutional question dating back to the beginning of our republic. Mark’s exclusion of it to me is puzzling. As each of his recommended liberty amendments is a road map bringing us out of the mires of progressivism to the freedom of the constitution, I believe he just missed a tremendous teaching opportunity by not including this question.

    • 57thunderbird

      I agree.

    • Jerome Sanders

      okay, so have your state propose this as an amendment.

  • Garym

    I lost respect for Beck when his in house comedian trashed Palin concerning the BS Glenn Rice rumors. Glenn never, to my recollection, apologized or made a statement denouncing that horrible episode. That’s when Levin rightfully went after Beck.

    • Calvin_02

      That’s when Levin rightfully went after Beck.

      I assume you’re talking about the BS of A, which began airing in September of 2011, long before Levin started calling Beck names and such.

      • http://nebraskattitude.blogspot.com/ shellymic

        Levin has been/had been calling GB “the 5PMer” ever since GB’s 1st TV show on Headline News. I hope that era of childishness is over. It’s good to see the two of them willing to work together. Good on Glenn for getting the ball rolling.

  • mama718

    We need to be united; not divided at this time. We need to be united as American citizens; no matter what our faith or political stance. We have to stop attacking each other and join together before it’s too late.

  • aboutdat

    Whew! I am glad that initial “talk” is over with.
    Maybe GB can have Mark on for an hour on TV
    when he gets to Dallas or NY?
    You could cut the “Newt” feelings with a knife during the call,
    .but now we can move on and join forces for good and shine some light
    ON Article 5 !!!!
    I am sort of surprised of the folks on here that don’t
    care for Glenn too much because he used to back stab
    Newt as a PROGRESSIVE and use others work without
    giving rightful owners their due. I am hoping GB learned his lesson
    on those professional courtesies and now I see him give credit when needed.
    Hey, we had this meeting didn’t we? IF GB and his fans jump in
    that will move things along a lot and sell a lot of books ML writes himself.
    I admit, I had to let that go too about mistakes they both made, but the BECK SICOPHANTS on here almost remind me of the worship of Oh-uh-oh.
    He is a good guy, I know it and believe it, but his focus is making money and building his network helping reset the culture of America. I don’t mind that at all because I did advise him to do so but I did not think he would actually try to do it.
    Be careful what you ask people in your emails.
    I like it better when he talked about the re-founders which I feel Mark Levin may be one. I hope GLENN rights his ship, uses his talents well, makes OPRAH type money so he can give some away, and relies more on himself and his ideas of finds the CORRECT people to help him. Man turns down FREE employees and spends millions ( or a lot?) on BS of A?
    There are many Levin lovers on here blinded by his brilliance (he
    seems to have just discovered) but I do know and think Mark has mellowed
    a LOT and yes he IS actually a Constitutional Lawyer and Historian
    (and dog lover).
    I won’t deny Glenn his talents and he taught me what the heck a progressive was
    (full meaning now including Re-pubes like Linda Grahm. and Johnny Mac). He was fun to watch on CNN and FOX but he rarely flashes that magic on his internet show.
    Oh yes, he really messed up dissing NEWT, SARAH, NEWT, BREITBART, NEWT
    ( you get the picture ) but I had to let that go and ignore all tho$e commcial$. BS of A is NOT funny and funny thing is Glenn and Stu ARE !
    I told him in emails he was wasting his gold coins on some of his ideas.
    Mark site is free and I do not give my grumpy lovable pretend Uncle ANY advice as long as he keeps on cracking me up and screaming at the bonehead RE-pubes.
    WHICH CRACKS ME UP !!!!!

    • steve hilton

      Newt describes himself as a progressive. How much plainer can it be. He fancies himself a mastermind, capable of “fixing things in Washington”. No more tinkering, let’s just go back to the original intent of the Constitution and follow it. We screwed up when we decided to let nine people in black robes decide all things for the rest of the country even when the actual Constitution was silent on certain subjects. Cases like these should be decided by the states for the states. And the Fed should butt out.

  • crosshr

    Glad these guys with microphones begin to get together and discuss with loud voices what’s both arms of our gov. are doing. This will help define and build the Conservative ideas in the minds of those that have been deeply indoctrinated with liberal ideas opposite to the Constitution.
    Excellent move on behalf of Mark and Glenn.Should have been done moons ago.

    • Russ

      Yes, there’s much cattiness among these radio hosts sometimes but I’m glad to see the big ones are all on the same page now.

    • notpilgrims2

      Liberals don’t listen to Beck.

      Additionally, if they did, they would disagree with him, because they are liberals and what Beck says isn’t liberal. In fact, liberals think he is crazy.

      • crosshr

        Whether liberals will or won’t , the point is we don’t roll over and allow anyone that attempt on taking away our rights to take us as slaves at will. Beck has done successful reversing the liberal course of my boat from supporting Clinton to Al, to Kerry to Hillary before she lost to Obama. When McCain and Palin showed up in 2008 we have listened to Beck few times. Thankfully, we were sorta open minded and learn and compare and research for facts to prove what Beck 5:00pm famous Fox TV program discussed.
        Please don’t accept any reason that may support the liberals by disliking whom we find ourself with in the foxhole.

  • Michael Tavoliero

    Thanks, Jerome. I would love to and am working on it. My only point is if you live in a state as I do with a massive federal property ownership presence which ties up both the state’s and the individuals ability to develop it’s resources, you and your state tend to lean more into a progressive corporatist mentality and environment. Mark Levin makes a sound and stable argument for each of the liberty amendments. These arguments are foundational and axiomatic. I can proceed and develop each of these with my conversations on a local and state level with both my fellow laymen and politicians. What I don’t have are the bullets for my gun on this issue, federal property ownership….not the way Mark Levin can present it.

    We all need to remember as just one example of federal overreach Teddie Roosevelt and the Antiquities Act was the erosion of individual and state’s rights ostensibly for the preservation of our country’s resources. How is that working for us now?

    So while we are all working on our fellow citizens, why not all of us encourage Mark to consider this issue, as well as other issues which may come to mind, and perhaps either say why he has not followed up on it (he may have great reasons) or in the same wise and eruditional manner as he did with the other liberty amendments develop this issue?

  • Idahoser

    last night my wife wore a shirt that reminded me of this quote from Sam Adams:
    “It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people’s minds.”
    Coming when it did, it brought to mind that this is exactly what Mark Levin is doing with this Liberty Amendments idea.
    I hope the discussion leads to action. Not that his amendments are necessarily the way it will, or should, end up; but he’s not far from it.

  • notpilgrims2

    Glenn Beck said, “That’s what you want. That’s what you’re fighting for. Good. Go for it. Take it.”

    Why would he want his gun rights to go? Why would he just say, “Good”? Does he not realize that he won’t be able to own a gun if they do that? And he won’t have as good of a healthcare system if they pass single payer socialist healthcare.

  • notpilgrims2

    Levin said 13 states can stop it. So basically 13 states are just going to stop all of Mark’s amendments. Many states disagree with mark. Probably more than 13 have Democrat governments.