GLENNMarch 16, 2017

John Ziegler Makes the Case That Joe Paterno Was Set Up

Joe Paterno, who has the most victories of any coach in major college football history, was fired in 2011 by Penn State in the wake of a sexual abuse scandal involving former defensive coordinator, Jerry Sandusky, and the university’s failure to act to halt further harm. The firing sent shockwaves through the state of Pennsylvania and the US. Sandusky is now serving a sentence of 30-60 years in prison.

John Ziegler, radio talk show host and documentary filmmaker, has followed the case extensively and joined The Glenn Beck Program on Wednesday to discuss how he thinks Paterno was set up --- and Sandusky is innocent.

Enjoy the complimentary clip above or read the transcript below for details.

GLENN: Author, writer for Mediaite and host of the podcast, World According To Zig on soundcloud.com. John Ziegler is in the studios with us.

Jerry Sandusky is back in the news right now. If you don't remember the name, give me less-than-a-minute recap of Penn State.

JOHN: In November of 2011, Jerry Sandusky, former defensive coordinator for Penn State, a very famous coach, but had been retired for many years, was arrested on child molestation charges. Joe Paterno was fired, the legendary football coach at Penn State, three days -- three or four days later, along with the president of Penn State, Graham Spanier.

Sandusky was convicted. Penn State paid out almost $100 million in settlements. This week, two Penn State administrators pled guilty to a misdemeanor after the conspiracy charges after five and a half years were dropped. Next week, Graham Spanier, the former president of Penn State, will stand trial on these very same charges. He is innocent. He will not plead guilty, unless something really bizarre happens. And an innocent man's life is on the line.

But to me, Glenn, this story is much bigger than Penn State. Much bigger than even Graham Spaniard's freedom or Joe Paterno's legacy.

I have no collection to Penn State at all. I stupidly got involved in this five and a half years ago because the story, to use a phrase we now are all very familiar with, sounded immediately to me like "fake news." And as you guys know -- we've done some stories together before -- I have a pretty good nose for this kind of thing.

And I have coached high school football in several different states. I've covered college football, pro football. I understand the culture. Have no connection to Penn State. In fact, I actually have disdain for Penn State now, after five and a half years of this. But I also understand the way the news media works. And I got involved in this, just trying to find out what the heck the truth was, presuming that Jerry Sandusky was guilty as hell. That was my presumption at the beginning of this. But the Joe Paterno angle just never made any sense. Because there was this idea that there was a cover-up, that he had been told by an assistant coach, Mike McQueary, that Gary had abused the boy sexually and Paterno did nothing. And Penn State just decided to pretend it never happened. It made no sense for 100 million reasons. But one of which was, Sandusky was retired. He wasn't even part of the program at that point. And not to mention, it didn't fit with the culture of Penn State, nor college football as I know it. Well, as I got deeper and deeper into it --

PAT: And it certainly didn't fit with the character of Joe Paterno.

JOHN: Exactly.

JEFFY: No kidding.

JOHN: Joe Paterno was a stellar coach.

PAT: He's a legend. He's a legend.

JOHN: On and off the field, the most winning coach in the history of college football. But also ran a stellar football program. No hint of scandal. And a guy who was a squeaky clean, you know, 1950's kind of conservative Republican. By the way, friends of the Bush family.

JEFFY: Yeah, beloved.

GLENN: Right. But we -- we oftentimes see people that are -- that are living a double life, and you're like, well, they can't be.

JOHN: Right. Right.

GLENN: It was always the quiet one on the street that ended up having the heads in the refrigerator.

JOHN: Well, I understand that. And that's part -- there's so many elements of the perfect storm here. One of which is that this story breaks in Pennsylvania, not long after the whole Catholic church scandal.

GLENN: Right.

JOHN: And because of that, it sets a prism through which everybody, especially in the news media, they see this. They see Paterno as the Pope. They see the administrators as the cardinals. They see Sandusky, oh, he's the pedophile priest. And they see the Penn State football fans as, oh, these are the Catholic partitioners who love their phenomenal so much, their religion of football, that they're willing to look the other way and pretend that a pedophile didn't really exist. That was a narrative that fit.

GLENN: Yeah, but that narrative is real in many cases. People don't want to look at this stuff.

JOHN: I understand that. But that's what set this case up for a massive injustice.

So as I got involved more and more and I was just looking for the truth, I interviewed Sandusky, not once, but twice in prison for six hours, plus. Went on the Today Show, not once, but twice. The second time Matt Lauer very nicely declared my career to be dead three years ago, this week. But I figured, okay. If you're going to die on a hill, this is a pretty good hill to die on. And trust me, I've taken enough bullets to understand the reality of that.

What I realized was that the only way to make this case make any sense at all is that shockingly, the part of the case that no one took a look at, no one bothered to do the math on, the Jerry Sandusky element is a myth. That Jerry Sandusky is, in fact, innocent. And it's not even close. That's what's so amazing about this.

But we start a domino effect. The Joe Paterno firing. And people who are not from Pennsylvania can't fully understand the psychological impact of the firing of Joe Paterno. This was a nuclear explosion over this entire case. It was like people's entire lives had been turned upside down.

JEFFY: No kidding.

JOHN: This was worse than the Trump election for liberals. Everything is upside down. And in reality, to understand this case fully, you have to understand that the moment of Paterno's firing, all the incentives in this case get flipped upside down. Everybody's incentives are now perverse. All the white hats turn into black hats, and the black hats turn into white hats.

And from that moment on, we have a domino effect of injustice. I like to use the metaphor that this whole case is a painting that everyone looks at and goes, "This makes no damn sense." And I came along and said, "Here's why." I flipped it upside down. And people go, "Oh, my gosh."

GLENN: Okay. So flip it upside down.

JOHN: Here's what happens. The real story of this is the classic case of when people think they're doing the right moral thing, stopping pedophilia or injustice against children. And they become invested in a myth.

GLENN: Yes.

JOHN: I'll use -- this audience will understand the parallel to global warming. Okay. This is man-made global warming because we have a consensus of science, allegedly, and because we are doing the right thing for humanity, you are a bad person if you disagree. If you even question it, you are a bad person.

Well, that's what happened in this case. I'm the bad person. I'm the bad person who actually said --

GLENN: Because you're viewed not as saying, "Wait a minute. Let's look for the truth." You're looked upon as a guy who wants to let a pedophile get away.

JOHN: Exactly. And so why is it that I'm the guy? Because I'm sure that's what a lot of people are asking.

STU: The first thing I did when I saw you tweeting about this was check to see if you graduated from Penn State. It was the first thing I did.

JEFFY: I know. I know.

JOHN: Right. I went to Georgetown University. Okay. That's number one.

Number two, I have zero financial motive at all. My website, FramingPaterno.com, takes no ads. I have hundreds of videos on YouTube. No ads. I have purposely lost money on this case.

My career, as Lauer predicted, has been crap because of this. And my wife, I don't know why she has stuck with me through it all. And I know I'm right. And it's not close. I can go through detail by detail as to why this happened the way that it did. But mostly it happened because the focus shifted at the beginning of the case -- think about this case as a mathematical equation. A complex mathematical equation. One number times another number times another number. Everyone thought the first number was something other than zero. Well, I did the math and said, "Wait a minute. The first number is zero." Which means the whole equation, zero times anything is still going to be zero.

And the thing about this, Glenn, which is really incredibly frustrating to me, I'm not the only guy who knows this. Almost everybody on the inside of this story knows it, including the three administrators, who were facing trial, two of whom pled guilty to a misdemeanor this week, the other Graham Spanier, who faces trial next week. And people on the Penn State board of trustees know this.

But everyone is afraid to talk about it. There's never been a case where fear, cowardice, and stupidity reigned more supreme than this one. Because everyone is afraid of the news media. And they are now, like -- trying to tell the news media the truth about this case is like trying to convince a 5-year-old that Santa Claus doesn't exist. They are completely and totally invested.

GLENN: So you're saying that the number -- the reason why that number is zero is because the victim -- victim number one is lying.

JOHN: Yes. And that's -- and it's important to point out. That's a great way to phrase it. Victim number one is a guy by the name of Aaron Fisher. He wrote a book. I presume from my first two years of this investigation he must be telling the truth. Because I was told child abuse victims never lie. And, you know, he -- he made himself known publicly. The only trial accuser that did so. He did an interview with Chris Cuomo on 20/20, which if you look at now on YouTube, you can tell he's not telling the truth because he doesn't act like a sex abuse victim at all and said very suspicious things. But I spent two years not even worrying about him. I now have 12 people on the record, on audio. I haven't released all of them at FramingPaterno.com. But most of them. Twelve people, incredibly close to him. I'm talking, aunts very close. Buddies from the time period of the allegation. Parents of the buddies of the time period of the allegation. Girlfriends. People who sponsored a rally on his behalf when his book came out. Twelve people against their own self-interests to have all said they're positive he's lying. Positive.

I've been -- his mom -- his mom, who if you believe his story -- his story is preposterous. And it's important to point out, he's the only accuser in this case for two and a half years. He's the only one. And during a grand jury investigation. His mom, the story goes, this is under her watch, he goes to Jerry Sandusky as a 12 to 14-year-old. One of the things -- misperceptions about this case is somehow these were six, seven, 8-year-old boys. No, these were all 12, 13, 14-year-old boys, which Jerry is a coach. These are when kids become athletes. That's why he took an interest in that age of kid. He's a very naive, I think stupid in a lot of ways, guy who is very religious and who never dreamed that anybody was going to think that this was somehow nefarious. He devoted his life to kids.

The mom, who under his -- her watch, he gets abused by her trial testimony, 100 times. One hundred times as a 13, 14-year-old. By the way, while he's dating girls and having sex with them, according to his buddies, she is now driving a -- a Mercedes, a Jaguar, a Cadillac Escalade and living in a giant house. Now, how in the world any mother could possibly have the lack of guilt to drive those cars when it's money that was gotten because you were such a bad mom, you kept feeding your son to a horrendous pedophile is beyond me. But that's one very tiny tip of this entire humongous iceberg.

The reason that this is so important is, if he's lying -- and I know that he is -- he's what they use to build the rest of the case. This became whisper down the lane. This becomes the Loch Ness Monster. Nobody thought there was a Loch Ness Monster until people started saying there was a Loch Ness Monster. Now, all of a sudden, everybody is trying to get the damn Loch Ness Monster. Well, there is no Loch Ness Monster in real life, and there's no Loch Ness Monster in this story. And there's no evidence where there should be O.J. Simpson-like evidence, Glenn. We're five and a half years into this thing, multiple investigations, an alleged cover-up that disintegrates, and yet there's nothing. There's nothing. Other than testimony of people who were paid millions of dollars. The settlement process was a sham. I have a fake accuser who went to the number one lawyer in this case, in a sting operation. We have incredibly damning audio.

GLENN: Okay. I want to go there. At the top of the hour, I want to take you to the sting operation. Because you've heard the audio of the sting operation. And we can't play them yet because I guess of legal maneuvering.

JOHN: Well, you don't want to go to jail for me, do you, Glenn?

GLENN: Yeah. No, I don't. But Stu has heard the audiotape. And if it is as described -- I have not heard it -- it's pretty remarkable.

STU: I think it's important too. Because you mentioned accuser one. But I think people think in their head, accuser one is the kid in the shower that Mike McQueary saw. He said he saw this happen. And he testified to actually visually seeing the assault go on.

JOHN: Right.

STU: And that's the one that sits on -- because there's ten total? Because that's the big one.

JOHN: Let's talk about that one. Absolutely.

EXPOSED: Tim Walz's shocking ties to radical Muslim cleric

Minnesota Governor Tim Walz is directly connected in more ways than one to a radical Muslim cleric named Asad Zaman. Zaman's history and ties are despicable, and despite Walz's efforts to dismiss his connection to Zaman, the proof is undeniable. Glenn Beck heads to the chalkboard to connect the dots on this relationship.

Watch the FULL Episode HERE: Glenn Beck Exposes TERRORIST SYMPATHIZERS Infiltrating the Democrat Party

RADIO

Is there a sinister GOP plan to SELL national parks?

Is Sen. Mike Lee pushing a sinister plan to sell our national parks and build “affordable housing” on them? Glenn Beck fact checks this claim and explains why Sen. Lee’s plan to sell 3 million acres of federal land is actually pro-freedom.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Now, let me give you a couple of things, from people I generally respect.

Chris Rufo, I really respect.

I'm totally against selling this land.

Nobody is going to build affordable housing deep in the Olympic Peninsula, which is one of the most beautiful places in the country.

I agree, it's in Washington State. It's on the coast. And it's a rain forest.

I want my kids hiking, fishing, and camping on those lands, not selling them off for some tax credit scam. This is a question I want to ask Mike Lee about.

That's really good. Matt Walsh chimes in, I'm very opposed to the plan. The biggest environmentalist in the country are and always have been, conservatives who like to hunt and fish.

We don't just call ourselves environmentalists, because the label has too much baggage.

And the practice always just means communist. Really, we are naturalists in the tradition of Teddy Roosevelt, and that's why most of us hate the idea of selling off federal lands to build affordable housing or whatever. I want to get to affordable housing here in a second.

Preserving nature is important. It's a shame we haven't -- that we've allowed conservation to become so left-wing coated. It never was historically.

No, and it still isn't.

You're right about one thing, Matt. We are the best conservatives. We actually live in these places. We use these places. We respect the animals. We respect the land. We know how the circle of life works. So I agree with you on that.

But affordable housing. Why do you say affordable housing or whatever?

Are you afraid those will be black people? I'm just playing devil's advocate? Are you just afraid of black people? You don't want any poor people in your neighborhood or your forest?

That's not what they mean by affordable housing.

And I know that's not what you mean either.

But what -- what we mean by affordable housing is, if you take a look at the percentage of land that is owned in some of these states. You can't live in a house, in some of these states, you know. Close to anything, for, you know, less than a million dollars. Because there's no land!

There's plenty of land all around.

Some of it. Let's just talk about Utah.

Some of it is like the surface of the moon!

But no. No. No.

Not going to hunt and fish on the surface of the moon. But we can't have you live anywhere.

I mean, you have to open up -- there is a balance between people and the planet. And I'm sorry. But when you're talked about one half of 1 percent, and we're not talking about Yellowstone.

You know, we're not. Benji Backer, the Daily Caller, he says, the United States is attempting to sell off three million acres of public land, that will be used for housing development through the addition of the spending bill.

This is a small provision to the big, beautiful bill that would put land in Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado. Idaho. New Mexico. Oregon. Utah. Washington, and Wyoming at risk.

Without so much as a full and fair debate by members of both sides of the political aisle.

You know, I talked -- I'll talk to him about this.

The irony is, the edition of this provision by Republican-led Senate goes entirely against conservation legacy of a conservation. President Trump made a promise to revive this legacy.

Yada. Yada. Yada.

More about Teddy Roosevelt.

Then let me give you this one from Lomez. Is Mike Lee part of a sinister plan to sell off federal land?

This plan to sell off public lands is a terrible proposal that doesn't make any sense under our present circumstances and would be a colossal political blunder. But I'll try to be fair to base Mike Lee.

And at least have him explain where this is all coming from.

Okay. I will have him do that in about 30 minutes.

Let me give you just my perspective on this.

I'm from the West. I love the west.

I don't hike myself.

I think there's about 80 percent of the people who say, I just love to hike. And they don't love to hike. They never go outside.

I'm at least willing to admit. I don't like to hike. But I love the land. I live in a canyon now. That I would love to just preserve this whole canyon in my lifetime. I'm not going to rule from the grave. But in my lifetime, to protect this, so it remains unspoiled. Because it is beautiful!

But we're talking about selling 3 million acres of federal land. And it's becoming dangerous.

And it's a giveaway. Or a threat to nature.

But can we just look at the perspective here?

The federal government owned 640 million acres. That is nearly 28 percent of all land in America!

How much land do we have?

Well, that's about the size of France.

And Germany. Poland.

And the United Kingdom, combined!

They own and hold pristine land, that is more than the size of those countries combined!

And most of that is west of the Mississippi. Where the federal control smothers the states.

Okay?

Shuts down opportunity. Turns local citizens into tenets of the federal estate.

You can't afford any house because you don't have any land!

And, you know, the states can't afford to take care of this land. You know why the states can't afford it?

Because you can't charge taxes on 70 percent of your land!

Anyway, on, meanwhile, the folks east of the Mississippi, like Kentucky, Georgia. Pennsylvania.

You don't even realize, you know, how little of the land, you actually control.

Or how easy it is for the same policies, to come for you.

And those policies are real.

Look, I'm not talking about -- I'm disturbed by Chris Rufo saying, that it is the Olympic forest.

I mean, you're not going to live in the rain forest. I would like to hear the case on that.

But we're not talking about selling Yellowstone or paving over Yosemite or anything like that.

We're talking about less than one half of one percent of federal land. Land that is remote.
Hard to access. Or mismanaged. I live in the middle of a national forest.

So I'm surrounded on all sides by a national forest, and then BLM land around that. And then me. You know who the worst neighbor I have is?

The federal government.

The BLM land is so badly mismanaged. They don't care what's happening.

Yeah. I'm going to call my neighbor, in Washington, DC, to have them fix something.

It's not going to happen.

If something is wrong with that land, me and my neighbors, we end up, you know, fixing the land.

We end up doing it. Because the federal government sucks at it.

Okay.

So here's one -- less than one half of 1 percent.

Why is it hard to access that land?

Well, let me give you a story. Yellowstone.

Do you know that the American bison, we call it the buffalo.

But it's the American bison.

There are no true American bison, in any place, other than Yellowstone.

Did you know that?

Here's almost an endangered species.

It's the only true American bison, is in Yellowstone.

Ranchers, I would love to raise real American bison.

And I would protect them.

I would love to have them roaming on my land.

But you can't!

You can't.

Real bison, you can't.

Why? Because the federal government won't allow any of them to be bred.

In fact, when Yellowstone has too many bison on their land, you know what the federal government does?

Kills them. And buries them with a bulldozer. Instead of saying, hey. We have too many.

We will thin the herd.

We will put them on a truck. Here's some ranchers that will help repopulate the United States with bison. No, no, no. You can't do that.

Why? It's the federal government. Stop asking questions. Do you know what they've done to our bald eagles.

I have pictures of piles of bald eagles.

That they'll never show you.

They'll never show you.

You can't have a bald eagle feather!

It's against the law, to have a feather, from a bald eagle!

If it's flying, and a feather falls off, you can't pick it up. Because they're that sacred.

But I have pictures of piles of bald eagles, dead, from the windmills.

And nobody says a thing.

Okay.

But we're talking about lands.

States can't afford to manage it.

Okay. But how can the federal government?

Now, this is really important.

The federal government is, what? $30 trillion in debt or are we 45 trillion now, I'm not sure?

Our entitlement programs, all straight infrastructure, crumbling.

And yet, we're still clinging to millions of acres of land, that the federal government can't maintain. Yeah, they can.

Because they can always print money.

We can't print money in the state, so we can't afford it.

Hear me out. The BLM Forest Service, Park Service, billions of dollars behind in maintenance, roads, trails, fire brakes.

Everything is falling apart..

So what's the real plan here?

Well, the Biden administration was the first one that was really open about it, pushing for what was called 30 by 30.

They want 30 percent of all US land and water, under conservation by 2030.

But the real goal is 5050.

50 percent of the land, and the water, in the government's control by 2050.

Half of the country locked up under federal or elite approved protection.

Now, you think that's not going to affect your ability to hunt, fish, graze, cattle. Harvest, timber, just live free. You won't be able to go on those. It won't be conservatives, who stop you from hunting and fishing.

It will be the same radical environmental ideologues, who see the land, as sacred, over people!

I mean, unless it's in your backyard. Your truck. Or your dear stand, you know, then I guess you can't touch that land.

Here's something that no one is talking about, and it goes to the 2030.

The Treasury right now, and they started under Obama, and they're still doing it now.

Sorry, under Biden.

And they're doing it now. The Treasury is talking about putting federal land on the national ballot sheet. What does that mean?

Well, it will make our balance sheet so much better.

Because it looks like we have so much more wealth, and we will be able to print more money.

Uh-huh. What happens, you know. You put something sacred like that, on your balance sheet, and the piggy bank runs dry.

And all of the banks are like, okay.

Well, you can't pay anymore.

What happens in a default?

What happens, if there's catastrophic failure. You don't get to go fish on that land. Because that land becomes Chinese.

You think our creditors, foreign and domestic, won't come knocking?

What happens when federal land is no longer a national treasure, but a financial asset, that can be seized or sold or controlled by giant banks or foreign countries.

That land that you thought, you would always have access to, for your kids, for your hunting lodge, for your way of life.

That is really important!

But it might not be yours at all. Because you had full faith in the credit of the United States of America.

So what is the alternative?

RADIO

Dershowitz SLAMS ‘expert’ lies in explosive trans surgery debate

The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in favor a Tennessee law that bans transgender surgeries for minors. But famed attorney Alan Dershowitz explains to Glenn why “it should have been unanimous.”

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Alan Dershowitz, how are you?

ALAN: I'm doing great, how about you?

GLENN: It has been a really confusing week. I'm losing friends, I think, because I stand with Israel's right to defend themselves. And I'm pointing out, that while I don't want a war, Iran is a really bad place.

And then I see, the Supreme Court comes out best interest there are three justices are like, I don't know. I think children, you know, can change their identity before we even let them drive or carry a gun. Or enlist in the military.

It's insane!

ALAN: It is insane. Especially since the radical left said that -- 17 and a half-year-old -- voluntary sex with their boyfriend. That would be sexist, that would be horrible.

But they can consent to have an abortion. They can consent to have radical surgery, that can't be reversed.

By the way, the decision is like six to two and a half. Elena Kagan, my former colleague at Harvard, didn't reach the merits of whether or not a state could actually ban these operations on a minor. She got involved in whether or not you need super, duper scrutiny, or just super scrutiny, a kind of, you know, a very technical thing.

But she didn't rule on whether under any kind of scrutiny, the state could do that. So definitely, two of them said that the state could do it, but not necessarily a third one.

GLENN: Okay.

Can you break this argument down? And why it should have been unanimous?

ALAN: Oh, it should be unanimous. There's no question.

States under the Constitution, have the authority to decide medical issues. States decide a whole range of medical issues. I remember when I was a young professor, there was an issue of whether or not one twin could be operated on to remove a kidney, to be given to another twin.

And, you know, that case went all the way through -- the federal government never got involved in that. That was up to the state of Massachusetts. They made interesting decisions.

Some states go the other way.

Half the countries of Europe go one way. The other half go the other way. And just as Justice Brandeis once said that things are the laboratories of Constitutional experimentation.

They have the right to do things their own way. And then we'll see over time. Over time, I predict that we will find that this kind of surgery, is not acceptable scientifically for young people.

And the New York Times had an absurd op-ed yesterday. By the mother of a transgender person.

And it never mentioned. It originally said that the person was now 18 years old.

And the decision does not apply to anyone who is 18.

You know, just wait. Don't make irreversible decisions while you're 12 years old. Or 13 years old.

Because we know the statistics show, that some people, at least, regret having made these irreversible decisions, particularly. Yeah.

GLENN: So why is it -- why is it that the state. Why wasn't the argument, you can't do this to children?

ALAN: Well, you know, that's the question.

Whether or not if the state says, you can do it to children, that violates the Constitution. I think states are given an enormous amount of leeway, this. Deciding what's best for people.

You leave it to the public.

And, you know, for me, if I were, you know, voting. I would not vote to allow a 17-year-old to make that irreversible decision. But if the state wants to do it. If a country in Europe wants to do it. All right!

But the idea that there's a constitutional right for a minor, who can't -- isn't old enough to consent to a contract, to have sex, is old enough to consent to do something that will change their life forever, and they will come to regret, is -- is absurd.

GLENN: So I don't know how you feel about Justice Thomas. But he -- he took on the so-called experts.

And -- and really kind of took him to the woodshed. What were your thoughts on that?

ALAN: Well, I agree with that. I devoted my whole life to challenging experts. That's what I do in court.

I challenge experts all the time. But most of the major cases that I've won, have been cases where experts went one way, and we were -- persuaded a jury or judge. That the expert is not really an expert.

Experts have become partisans, just like everybody else.

And so I'm glad that expert piece is being challenged by judges.

And, you know, experts ought to challenge judges, judges challenge experts. That's the world we live in. Everybody challenges everybody else. As long as all of us are allowed to speak, allowed to have our point of view expressed, allowed to vote, that's democracy.

Democracy does not require a singular answer to complex medical, psychological, moral problems. We can have multiple answers.

We're not a dictatorship. We're not in North Korea or Iran, where the ayatollah or the leader tells us what to think. We can think for ourselves, and we can act for ourselves.

GLENN: Yeah. It's really interesting because this is my argument with Obamacare.

I was dead set against Obamacare. But I wasn't against Romneycare when it was in Massachusetts. If that's what Massachusetts wants to do, Massachusetts can do it. Try it.

And honestly, if it would work in a state, we would all adopt it.

But the problem is, that some of these things, like Romneycare, doesn't work. And so they want to -- they want to rope the federal government into it. Because the federal government can just print money. You know, any state wants to do anything.

For instance, I have a real hard time with California right now.

Because I have a feeling, when they fail, we will be roped into paying for the things that we all knew were bad ideas.

Why? Why should I pay for it in Texas, when I know it wouldn't work?

And I've always wanted to live in California, but I don't, because I know that's not going to work.

ALAN: Yeah. But conservatives sometimes take the opposite point of view.

Take guns, for example.

The same Justice Thomas says that I state cannot have the authority to decide that guns should not be available in time square.

Or in schools. There has to be a national openness to guns. Because of the second apple.

And -- you can argue reasonably, what the Second Amendment means.

But, you know, conservatives -- many conservatives take the view that it has to be a single standard for the United States.

It can't vary in their decision how to control -- I'm your favorite --

GLENN: Isn't that -- doesn't that -- doesn't that just take what the -- what the Bill of Rights is about, and turns it upside the head?

I mean, it says, anything not mentioned here, the states have the rights.

But they -- they cannot. The federal government cannot get involved in any of these things.

And these are rights that are enshrined.

So, I mean, because you could say that, but, I mean, when it comes to health care, that's not in the Constitution. Not in the Bill of Rights.

ALAN: Oh, no.

There's a big difference, of course.

The Second Amendment does provide for the right to bear arms.

The question is whether it's interpreted in light of the beginning of the Second Amendment. Which says, essentially, a well-regulated, well-regulated militia. Whether that applies to private ownership as well.

Whether it could be well-regulated by states.

Look, these are interesting debates.

And the Supreme Court, you know, decides these.

But all I'm saying is that many of these decisions are in some way, influenced by ideology.

The words of the Constitution, don't speak like, you know, the Ten Commandments and God, giving orders from on high.

They're often written in ambiguous terms. Even the Ten Commandments. You know, it says, thou shall not murder. And it's been interpreted by some to say, thou shall not still, the Hebrew word is (foreign language), for murder, not kill. And, of course, we know that in parts of the Bible, you are allowed to kill your enemies, if they come after you to kill you, rise up and kill them first.

So, you know, everything -- human beings are incapable of writing with absolute clarity, about complex issues.

That's why we need institutions to interpret them. The institutions should be fair.

And the Supreme Court is sometimes taking over too much authority, too much power.

I have an article today, with gay stone.

Can had starts with a quote from the book of Ruth.

And it says, when judges rule the land, there was famine.

And I say, judges were not supposed to ever rule, going back to Biblical times.

Judges are supposed to judge.

People who are elected or pointed appropriately. Are the ones supposed to rule.

GLENN: Quickly. Two other topics. And I know you have to go.

If I can get a couple of quick takes on you.

The Democrats that are being handcuffed, and throwing themselves into situations.

Do you find that to be a sign of a fascistic state or a publicity stunt?

ALAN: A publicity stunt. And they would knit it. You know, give them a drink at 11 o'clock in the bar. They will tell you, they are doing this deliberately to get attention.

Of course, a guy who is running behind in the mayor race in New York, goes and gets himself arrested. And now he's on every New York television station. And probably will move himself up in the polls.

So no.

Insular -- I don't believe in that. And I don't believe we should take it -- take it seriously.

GLENN: Last question.

I am proudly for Israel.

But I'm also for America. And I'm really tired of foreign wars.

And I think you can be pro-Israel and pro-America at the same time.

I don't think you can -- you don't have to say, I'm for Israel, defending themselves, and then that makes me a warmonger.

I am also very concerned about Iran. And have been for a very long time.

Because they're Twelvers. They're Shia Twelvers. That want to wash the world in blood. To hasten the return of the promised one.

So when they have a nuclear weapon. It's a whole different story.

ALAN: No, I agree with you, Tucker Carlson, is absolutely wrong, when he say he has to choose between America first or supporting Israel. Supporting Israel in this fight against Iran, is being America first.

It's supporting America. Israel has been doing all the hard work. It's been the one who lost its civilians and fortunately, none of its pilots yet.

But America and Israel work together in the interest of both countries.

So I'm -- I'm a big supporter of the United States, the patriarch. And I'm a big supporter of Israel at the same time.

Because they work together in tandem, to bring about Western -- Western values.

GLENN: Should we drop a bomb?

ALAN: Yes, we should.

GLENN: Our plane drop the bomb?

ALAN: Yes, we should. And without killing civilians. It can be done. Probably needs four bombs, not one bomb. First, one bomb to open up the mountain. Then another bomb to destroy what's going on inside.

And in my book The Preventive State, I make the case for when preventive war is acceptable. And the war against Iran is as acceptable as it would have been to attack Nazi Germany in the 1930s. If we had done that, if Britain and France had attacked Nazi Germany in the 1930s, instead of allowing it to be built up, it could have saved 60 million lives. And so sometimes, you have to take preventive actions to save lives.

GLENN: What is the preventive state out, Alan?

ALAN: Just now. Just now.

Very well on Amazon.

New York Times refuses to review it. Because I defended Donald Trump.

And Harvard club cancelled my appearance talked about the book. Because I haven't been defending Harvard. I've been defending President Trump's attack. By the way, they called Trump to Harvard: Go fund yourself.
(laughter)

GLENN: Okay.

Let's -- I would love to have you back on next week. To talk about the preventive state. If you will. Thank you, Alan. I appreciate it. Alan Dershowitz. Harvard Law school, professor emeritus, host of the Dershow. And the author of the new book that's out now, The Preventive State.

I think that's a really important topic. Because we are -- we are traveling down the roads, where fascism, on both sides, where fascism can start to creep in. And it's all for your own good.

It's all for your own protection. Be aware. Be aware.

THE GLENN BECK PODCAST

They want to control what you eat! — Cattle rancher's stark warning

American cattle rancher Shad Sullivan tells Glenn Beck that there is a "War on Beef" being waged by the globalist elites and that Americans need to be prepared for this to be an ongoing battle. How secure is America's food supply chain, and what does the country need to do to ensure food shortages never occur in the future?

Watch Glenn's FULL Interview with Shad Sullivan HERE

Glenn's Show Prep

John Ziegler Makes the Case That Joe Paterno Was Set Up

EXPOSED: Tim Walz's shocking ties to radical Muslim cleric

Is there a sinister GOP plan to SELL national parks?

Transcript

Dershowitz SLAMS ‘expert’ lies in explosive trans surgery debate

Transcript

They want to control what you eat! — Cattle rancher's stark warning