GLENNApril 20, 2017

Belly of the Beast: Glenn Recounts a Hallway Argument at Fox News

What was the corporate culture like at Fox News? On radio today, Glenn shared an enlightening encounter from his FNC days, which now makes him question certain stories being reported in the wake of Bill O'Reilly's exit.

Enjoy the complimentary clip or read the transcript for details.

GLENN: All right. So we're talking about this audio about Kirsten Powers, who was complaining that Bill O'Reilly pointed out the fact that there were a lot of blondes that work at Fox News. And that was her experience with Bill O'Reilly, the nightmare, that he was a Neanderthal and said, "There's so many blondes here, I sometimes lose track and I can't keep you all straight." She wanted something done. He needed to apologize. Needed to make sure that that never happened again. Blah, blah.

This woman is -- you know, she's a liberal. She dated Anthony Weiner. And her -- I mean, how you could have spent two minutes with Anthony Weiner if your line is that --

PAT: If you're that sensitive.

GLENN: -- is beyond me. But -- so the trouble comes, as she is telling the story -- she said, so I went to Roger Ailes.

And what did Roger Ailes say, Stu?

STU: He --

GLENN: Nobody likes Bill.

STU: Nobody likes Bill. He likes to pin up pictures of hot women. He likes to talk dirty to hot women.

GLENN: Okay. Where does that come from? Where does the talk dirty come from?

STU: Well, I mean, it's coming from Roger Ailes here.

GLENN: Here. But what does that --

STU: He's referencing an old story that had been reported.

GLENN: Okay. Now, this is the big thing. This is the one where everybody said, well, he paid off. Okay.

Here he is. And it seems as though this was a consensual relationship, at least at one point. Bill thought that they were -- this is what it seems. I don't know if this is true.

STU: We have not talked to Bill.

GLENN: I have not talked about Bill.

STU: You're just saying, basing this on the reporting.

GLENN: Basing this on the reporting. I have not talked to Bill. And it's like, hey, Bill, so tell me about that lawsuit. No.

But this is -- this is my theory on -- on Bill. Consensual, and at some point, it stopped. He didn't know. Or he was just like, eh, I'm kidding. Whatever.

But she taped really inappropriate things on the phone. At some point, she knew, I can make a killing here. Okay?

And so she demand -- I think the word was $60 million, to keep those tapes out of the public. Do you want your tapes or your emails to your wife or your husband -- do you want bedroom talk of yours out into the public? Because I wouldn't. Would you, Stu? Would you?

PAT: Well, especially to my husband. I would say no to that.

GLENN: Your wife or your husband. Okay? Nobody wants that. That's not something that Bill O'Reilly or anybody wants.

Well, I have it. Okay. Settle the lawsuit.

Now, I think that -- I could be wrong. But the way I've read that story -- and I've looked at it, you know, for, what? Fifteen years that story came out. Fifteen years ago.

PAT: Been a while. Ten, 15.

GLENN: So I haven't thought about that story since then. But if you hear what she's saying here -- what did Roger Ailes do? Roger Ailes brought that story up, and her sexual smear, the reason why this is on CNN with the -- the headline, "Look at what she said Roger Ailes said about Bill," comes from that one story.

Now, why is that important? Let me share a story with you on what I know about working at Fox under Roger Ailes.

Roger Ailes was a genius. Sheer genius. I think there was a good side of Roger Ailes. I think the dark side of Roger Ailes won. But I think there was a really good side of Roger Ailes. And I think he was torn apart towards the end of his life thinking what he could have done, if he would have used his power for good as opposed to evil.

But at some point in his life, he became a dirty old man. And -- and one of the things that he did at Fox -- and I know it firsthand is, he would sabotage relationships.

Remember how I have said in the past that, you know, Sean Hannity and Mark Levin and I, we didn't get along.

Well, me personally, I believe that all came from Roger Ailes. And I know another one who was involved, who was also feeding that stuff. But they were being fed by Roger Ailes. Roger liked to be the kingpin. And he was the master manipulator of everybody's relationship. And he liked his shows and his talent not liking each other. Because he knew, if I keep them pitted against each other, A, they'll compete harder to beat that son of a bitch. And they would never join forces. If they joined forces, then we're in trouble.

I know this firsthand because Bill O'Reilly heard an argument in the hallway at Fox. I don't know if I've told this story before on the air. Have I?

PAT: I don't think so.

GLENN: I heard an argument on -- in the hallway about ACORN. And remember when we found that New Orleans was the head. There was something really bad. And it had to do with Van Jones and ACORN and SEIU. Well, I didn't have the money to go investigate that, but Bill O'Reilly's team did. Bill O'Reilly saw that story and was like, "Got to get on that story. That's great."

Bill and I had no relationship. Bill heard an argument in the hallway between my producer and his producer. And my producer at the time was yelling at Bill's producer saying, "You stole our story." And that's when I came around the corner. And I said, "Whoa, whoa, guys, what is up?" And he said, "Well, you know, Bill O'Reilly's people are stealing our story." And I said, "What story is that?" The ACORN story.

That's not our story. That's America's story. What are they doing?

And he said, "Well, they're going to send somebody down into New Orleans." And I looked at Bill's producer, and I said, "That's fantastic. We'll get you everything that we know. Can we have you after you break the news with Bill -- can we have you on the show and you further the -- he was stunned.

Yeah. Good.

And I looked at Grish and said, "Whatever -- whatever they need, get them. This is -- we're a team here."

That's when Bill walked around the corner, and he just looked at me and went, "Beck." Bill was sitting around -- standing around the corner. He was listening to all of it.

That was the first time that Bill knew, I'm not like -- I'm not cut from the rest of -- I'm not like that. I'm a team player. Let's work together for the good of the company. Let's work together for the good of the country.

We're allies. If you remember on my show, I used to promote Sean Hannity. And he would do specials. And I would promote them because I wanted him to know, I'm in your corner. You don't have to be in my corner. I'm in your corner. And I would promote.

I did that to every show because I wanted to show -- and nobody ever asked me to. I had to go track down the details. But I did it to show the other talent, we don't have to be enemies. Why do we have to be enemies?

So when that happened, Bill called me up to his office the next day. "Beck, can you stop by my office? I want to talk to you."

Okay.

So I go into Bill's office which was the corner office and pretty darn sweet. And I'm sitting there. And, you know, he's got all these pictures of, you know, him with, you know, the pope and the president and Jesus. I mean, he's got everybody. And you're like, "Wow." And it was a pretty powerful office.

And I'm sitting there like a little no-nothing. Oh, is that the music? I'm going to have to pause in this story so we can pay some light bills. And we'll come back and tell you the rest. And I think it will begin to make sense, why I've said, "We're on a dangerous road in the media." A very dangerous road.

[break]

GLENN: So I'm sitting in Bill O'Reilly's office. And Bill calls me in, and he said, "So what are you doing here?" And I'm like, "Well, you called me to come up to your office." He said, "No, why are you here at Fox?" He said, "I used to watch you on Headline News." And he said, "I'd watch you." He said, "For a while there, I just thought you were nuts." And he said, "You might be. I'm not saying you're not. You might be nuts." He said, "But you're a hell of a television performer." And I said, "Thank you."

And he said, "You really believe this stuff, don't you?" And I said, "Yes, I do."

He said, "You need to slow down." And I said, "What do you mean?" And he said, "You're just going to burn through way too much." And I said, "Bill, I don't plan on being here for very long." And he said, "Why?" And I said, "I don't want to do this. I figure I'll be here for about two years, and that will be enough." And he said, "You could be here the rest of your -- look at me. You could be here the rest of your life." And I said, "I don't want to be." And he really didn't understand that.

And he was like, "Why not?" And I said, "Because this isn't what I want to do. This is what I feel like I need to do."

So the Bill O'Reilly in the hallway that heard me say basically, "We're partners. We don't even have to be friends. We don't have to be enemies. We're partners on furthering the news." That, coupled with him sitting me down and saying, "Why are you here?" And I said, "Because I believe it." He said, "You're going need to help." And I said, "Okay."

And he said, "You say some pretty crazy things." He said, "And people are going to need to hear the answer on what you really meant." And he said, "You know you're not going to get a fair interview anywhere." And I said, "Oh, I know. I just spent some time with Katie Couric." And he said, "I promise you, I will give you a fair interview. I'm not going -- I'm not going to be a Bill, but I'll give you a fair interview. I'm going to ask you the question that everybody wants to hear, but I'll let you answer it." And I said, "That would be tremendous." And if you're a long-time listener, you know -- people used to call me all the time and say, "Glenn, why do you go on Bill O'Reilly? He's not helping you. He's not your friend." Yes, he was. He was my friend. He was allowing -- he was asking the question the Katie Courics of the world wanted to ask me, without the agenda. He was a great friend. He was -- in fact, he and Anderson Cooper are the only two people in the industry that treated me like an equal, like a human being. And like I was intelligent. Only two people on the air that I can think of, that actually have been there. And really understand it. And may not agree with me on everything. But they know that I'm trying to be a decent human being.

I left Bill's office. When I left Bill's office, that didn't take long to get back up to the second floor, to where Roger Ailes was.

A few weeks later, I was in Ailes' office. He called me in for something. And he said, "Hey, listen, I know you're new here. I just want you to know, you've got to be careful of Bill O'Reilly." And I said, "Okay."

He's a user of people. And you just need to stay away from him and be very, very careful.

Huh. Okay. I didn't say anything. Okay. File it away.

A couple weeks later, I get another -- you know, another interview or time with Roger Ailes. And he plants another negative seed about Bill O'Reilly.

Bill O'Reilly and I are talking. And I said, "Hey, Bill, I think I've figured something out about this place." He said, "Yes." And I said, "I bet you're hearing negative things about me, about things I might be saying about you behind your back." And he just smiled. "Might be."

And I said, "Yeah, I'm hearing things that I shouldn't trust you because you're saying things behind my back." He smiled and said, "Might be."

And I said, "I tell you what, why don't we make a deal that we don't listen to those voices. And if we think that it might be true, we come to each other and we ask the other and we're honest with each other. Other than that, we dismiss them."

He said, "I think that's very wise advice."

Now, here's why I tell this story. Did you see what just happened with Kirsten Powers? She goes into Roger Ailes' office. She's new there. She goes to Roger's office, and she has a problem because he called her blonde on the air. And that's something that she even wrote a book about, you know, about what? Blondes. A non-blonde joke book. I mean, it was a book about how it's bad, and the horrible things that happen to blonde women.

STU: Well, I mean, a very standard criticism by the left was that there are a bunch of blondes working at Fox News.

GLENN: Yes.

PAT: The Fox News babes, they've been called. And that was something very common that the left was upset about.

GLENN: Yeah, but she's on the left.

STU: She was on the left, but worked at Fox News. So defended Fox News against that accusation and has written about how she did not like that people noticed the blonde hair.

GLENN: Right. Then you probably should have your hair -- you should stop lightning your hair because it's so blonde.

STU: I don't know what her natural color hair is, honestly. Personally.

GLENN: Yeah, I would say probably 40 percent of the people that are on-air at Fox are not naturally blonde. But that's, you know, a different story.

I'm, believe it or not, not a natural blonde anymore.

STU: Really?

GLENN: Yes. Yes.

So, anyway, you see what happened. She goes up and talks to Daddy Ailes. And what's Daddy say? A friend of Bill. A friend.

JEFFY: Uh-huh.

GLENN: You got to be careful. You know, Bill likes to -- he likes to talk dirty to people.

My guess is that Bill has made mistakes. But Bill mainly is old-school, as he says. He just -- come on. He's not going to play the politically correct, oh, I have to apologize because you were hurt by a blonde -- get over it. You're in the big leagues. Get over it.

I think that's old-school Bill O'Reilly. I also know Bill. We never had a problem because Bill knows that we're not only doing news, but we're also doing a show. And so he takes his business seriously. More seriously than anybody I've ever seen. And he has very high standards. Don't screw it up. Don't screw my show up. Don't waste my time. Don't waste my audience's time. Okay?

Very high standards. In the '90s -- in the '80s, this is the way I was, except I was much more of an animal. And if you screwed something up, I was pissed at you.

STU: You're not saying the sexual part of it.

GLENN: No, I'm saying the demanding exactness in your job.

So Bill gets a bad rap because, look, if you're not good at what you do or you screw up or you're lazy -- screw up once, he's going to be mad at you. Screw up twice, you've made an enemy. Not on his show. Not on his watch. Don't screw it up. Okay? That's one reason why Bill and I never had a problem because I understood that about Bill.

He takes it very seriously. Those who don't, you've got trouble. So he has that going for him. Or against him.

He is old-school, not going to play political correctness. He made a mistake I think in a consensual relationship.

And the worst part of it was Roger Ailes was feeding poison to everybody. So how much of this was right about Bill O'Reilly, and how much of this is poison that everybody knows that because -- I mean, even Roger Ailes who we know is a predator, Roger Ailes says he's a predator, right? I mean, he's got to be a predator.

JEFFY: Nobody likes him.

GLENN: Nobody likes him. That was one of the first things, Glenn, there is a reason that nobody likes Bill O'Reilly. Really? Because I didn't take everybody else's word for it. I just got to know him. And it started with me knowing that he's got to be the most guarded man in the world because either everybody wants something from him or everybody is knifing him in the back for his position. So I showed him support. And that broke down a wall. And so I found out who he really was, or at least who he really was who he showed me.

How many people just took, oh, yeah, he's -- watch out. Watch out.

STU: And, you know, it's tough because you get into these situations. And there is nobody who will even say things that are positive. Whether they're judging the case or not -- you know, even if they like you, they don't defend you. You're not the only one, apparently, though defending Bill O'Reilly. In a world exploding in violence, we've now identified a naval closer to home: Bill O'Reilly. Sexism is a serious problem and a serious accusation. It's true there are many people who dismiss a woman as unserious and out of their depth, not because they are, but because they are a woman. Bill O'Reilly isn't one of them. If disagreement is violence and everything is sexist, then eventually nothing will be.

GLENN: Who said that?

STU: Oh. The headline is Kirsten Powers: Bill O'Reilly is not sexist.

GLENN: Oh, my gosh.

PAT: Oh, my gosh. When did she say that?

JEFFY: What!

STU: Written in 2014. Written in 2014 for USA Today.

GLENN: Oh, my gosh. Oh, my gosh. And she is the one that had -- CNN is using now as the big smoking gun.

PAT: What! Oh, my gosh.

JEFFY: She must have forgotten -- forgotten when Bill thanked her for her --

GLENN: Unbelievable.

PAT: Jeez.

STU: I mean, that's incredible. Literally the headline in USA Today: Kirsten Powers, Bill O'Reilly is not sexist. That's the headline of the story. It was a column.

JEFFY: Unbelievable.

PAT: I mean, it was shocking that she survived the initial attack about her being blonde.

JEFFY: Right. I know.

PAT: You know, that she could even speak after that is a tribute to her. And then for her to completely forget about it in 2014, what an extraordinary person. Extraordinary person.

STU: We all have days where we forget things.

GLENN: Unbelievable. I have to tell you, is there anybody else that is defending -- I saw Eric Metaxas say something nice. Is there anybody saying anything nice about Bill O'Reilly?

STU: Other than Kirsten Powers in 2014.

GLENN: Yeah, other than when it was popular to say something nice about Bill O'Reilly. Look, I'm not judging the -- I don't know any of that. So I don't know. And I think you should -- you need to take people seriously on that stuff.

And I don't like if he's treating people, you know, poorly on the staff. I don't like that. Shut up, Jeffy. No, I don't like it. I think it's -- when you're rude to people, it's wrong. Shut the fat mouth. And close the --

JEFFY: That's a surprise to me. I didn't know you would feel that way.

GLENN: Close those -- close those lard-ridden eyes.

JEFFY: Is that a new policy coming from Glenn Beck?

GLENN: Yes, it is. It is. But I don't -- you don't stand for that. It's not right. It's not right.

PAT: No.

GLENN: And in a world where there are contracts and stars, it sometimes lasts longer than it should.

But also, let's look at facts.

PAT: Have we seen any? Have we seen a single fact? Have we seen any proof? Have we seen evidence of any of it? I don't think so. We have somebody's word against his.

GLENN: I haven't. I haven't. And nobody wants to -- nobody wants to stand up because it's unpopular. And we are -- we know -- I will be painted as a guy who is dismissing sexual assault or, you know, sexual impropriety or any of that. I know how that's going to be -- but that's not what I'm saying. That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying there is real. And there is fake. I don't know which this is. But I haven't seen the real stuff. I'm only seeing things that make me say, well, he called her blonde. And then Roger Ailes said something about him. That's not the same as sexual harassment. What are we doing?

Right is right. No matter what it costs you personally, right is right.

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

Supreme Court UPHOLDS Tennessee trans law, but should have done THIS

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

Belly of the Beast: Glenn Recounts a Hallway Argument at Fox News

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

Is there a sinister GOP plan to SELL national parks?

Transcript

Supreme Court UPHOLDS Tennessee trans law, but should have done THIS

Transcript

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