RADIOOctober 12, 2022

A Russian hoax culprit now is helping government CENSOR US!

John Solomon, CEO and Editor-In-Chief of ‘Just The News,’ joins Glenn to expose The Election Integrity Partnership — a coalition of entities that responds to censorship requests by urging social media and Big Tech platforms to throttle certain posts, users, or pages. And, Solomon explains, this is something they’re doing in conjunction with the U.S. State Department: It’s ‘the largest federally sanctioned censorship operation ever uncovered in America,’ he says. But, it gets even worse. One of the players involved in this all is Robbie Mook — former Hillary Clinton campaign manager AND one of the culprit’s in the Russian collusion hoax to take down Donald Trump. Solomon explains the 2 reasons why Mook’s involvement is so significant and what this means for U.S. censorship moving forward…

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Our good friend and a serious journalist, John Solomon. Welcome to the program, sir. How are you?

JOHN: Good to be with you, Glenn.

GLENN: Can you recap this story for anybody who may have missed it or may have forgotten about it, that you broke three or four weeks ago?

JOHN: Yeah. And there's a big development today I'll get to. But the election integrity partnership, was a three -- four-person, or four-entity -- private entity that came together. Two universities. Cyber community companies. And they formed this sort of left-leaning project that worked with the Homeland Security Department, and the State Department, to create a concierge ticket system, that people could file tickets, saying, I think this information will use the election integrity project. Go on behalf of us. And ask the social media companies to throttle the post, delete the post, or block the post, or flag the post.

And they did this. And they did it with significant reach. According to their own after action report, which we obtained. They impacted 4800 URLs, websites, 4800 of them, 20 journalists. More than two dozen conservative influencers. And by the way, we're one of the news organizations that was censored or blocked by this.

GLENN: Right.

We are too, and I was named as a super spreader.

JOHN: You were.

GLENN: I mean, there's a chart that you obtained, introducing the narrative, mainstreaming it, and then super spreaders. And this was about the Colour Revolution.

Which I don't know any -- I don't know who -- Beattie is. I don't know any of the others who were saying this. We were doing our even independent research.

And then it says -- Darren Beattie appears on Tucker Carlson. The next one is: Significant influencer pickup. Glenn Beck and mass spreading, sharing dynamics, as users post stories, and claims to Facebook groups.

So I'm a super spreader.

JOHN: Yeah. Welcome to the club. It's just amazing. The idea that -- and the country that was founded with the First Amendment. The very first one that our Founding Fathers gave us. Free speech. To see this collaboration, DHS sanctions. The State Department actually sends requests.

Helmuth didn't send any requests to actually censor the State Department. Private groups, including the Democratic National Committee did.

And this partnership itself, did a lot of its own flagging under the name of the government, forwarding it to -- 22 million tweets. Social media posts were impacted by the targeting that this group did.

Thirty-five percent of the time, when the request was maid of Twitter, Facebook, TikTok, and Google, the request was granted by social media.

That's a pretty good batting average. I know some baseball players that would take a batting average. A really, really significant -- the largest federally sanctioned censorship operation ever uncovered in America. And today we have a brand-new development. It turns out that one of the players, who was instructing the Homeland Security department during the 2020 election was a Harvard University entity, traded by Hillary Clinton's former campaign manager, Robbie.

Now, why is that significant? First off, another left-leaning person involved in the machinery. But it was Robbie, in 2016, who testified during the Sussmann trial, recently, he and Hillary Clinton sanctioned the idea of leaking key things about the Russia collusion there. The fake Russian collusion narrative, to the news media, even though they weren't sure it was true.

Think about that, in 2016, he's the perpetrator in one of the largest disinformation campaigns ever pulled out in American electorate history, and four years later, he's advising his group at the developer center, at Harvard University is advising the government on how to fight this information

GLENN: This is craziness. Is there anyone picking this up, to break this up? Or is this just getting worse?

JOHN: Absolutely -- well, it's definitely accelerating.

The group is back in action. They said they got the gang back together in a tweet post just a few days ago.

There are multiple members of Congress that have jumped in. Johnson, the Senate Homeland Committee.

James Comer, likely to be the chairman of the House Oversight Committee. Jim Jordan, likely, to be the chairman of judiciary committee, if Republicans gain control, Chuck Grassley, likely to be Senate judiciary community chairman. They're all asking questions. My understanding is, there may be a preservation letter going out in the next couple of days.

GLENN: What is it? Okay.

So, John, can I ask a question that maybe you're not prepared to answer. But --

JOHN: Sure.

GLENN: You know, just based on my gut, and I could very well be wrong, but this doesn't feel like an election that's going to be close.

And I hope it's not. One way or another, I hope it's not.

Because I don't think people are going to believe, that it wasn't fixed. The -- the Democrats will know that it was fixed. But if they lose, they'll say, it was the other side fixing it. And conservatives are so concerned about the last election. And it feels at least in Texas, it feels like a -- a red wave.

And I'm not suggesting that it feels like a 20-point margin. But it feels like we will win if they are close. We would win.

Could be wrong.

Are these elections safe? Are they secure?

JOHN: Well, listen, they're -- we have a much better handle on the rule changes, that really tipped the election to the favor of Democrats in 2020.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court rulings. Arizona legislation. Georgia legislation. Florida legislation. Texas legislation.

A lot of the states, particularly the red states, and the battle ground states, have attempted to fix the issues, that a lot of people believe hijacked the 2020 election. There are some states where the issues aren't fixed. Pennsylvania is a concern for a lot of people.

There has been some unusual activity in Colorado.

I think 30,000 registrations went out. We just confirmed this, this morning, to noncitizens who aren't supposed to vote in Colorado. So there are still failures and mistakes. We know Iran hacked into the 2020 election. We learned that a year after it occurred.

But I think the system is more insulated against the sort of tactics that the Democrats and liberals and their bureaucratic friends and the election bureaucracy, try to use during the covid-19 are wiser, smarter.

There are more election poll watchers ready to go and train, something that I think Glenn Youngkin did very well. And praised the model for the Republican Party, nationally. So I think people have greater confidence, that the system will be better oiled, less craziness.

And, also, changes to rules that they've done in the name of COVID-19, have been rolled back in a big way.

And I think another important thing happened two weeks ago, Glenn. I don't know if a lot of people paid attention. Because it happened on a Friday night.

But an Obama-era judge, Obama-appointed judge, declared that the whole concept that made Stacey Abrams, the national figure that she is, that Georgia is the epicenter of a 21st century Jim Crow race this voting system, an Obama judge struck down every count of her lawsuit. That sends a pretty powerful message to Americans and Georgians alike, that just asking for someone's ID is not racist. Checking somebody's citizenship is not racist.

Having a court declare that. By the way, a court led by a Democratic judge is I think, probably a very important force, going into this election.

GLENN: Let me switch subjects.

Ukraine. First of all, why is the teacher's union head, Randi Weingarten over on the front lines of Ukraine today?

I mean, I'm not even going to joke about it.

Anyway, why is she over there?

She's assessing the situation. What kind of payoff favors are -- what is happening there?

JOHN: Yeah. It's a mystery for a lot of people. She obviously has been over there. She says that she's trying to help the Ukrainian schools weather and perform the middle of a war. Who knows what's really going on there.

Listen, Ukraine has long been a favor to liberal Democrats. They have championed these causes. And, you know, they're in the middle of a brutal war. Putin's attack on Sunday was a brutal attack, because it targeted civilians.

It killed lots of people, unnecessarily.

I don't know what actually motivates are there. We're trying to find out. We put some FOIAs in at the State Department.

Because the State Department probably would have cleared or been -- we found out beyond what she said, what's there.

But, listen, this is a very dangerous war. It is already -- had enormous consequences on the economy of the European Union. Enormous human consequences to the Ukrainian people.

And Vladimir Putin is acting more and more desperate, and I think a lot of people have to look for, do we have a president? Do we have a leadership in the world, that can find an offramp?

Right now, stop this war, and try to create a negotiated settlement.

GLENN: Does it seem like we're looking for an off-ramp to you?

JOHN: I had an amazing interview with Victoria Coates over the weekend. Former Deputy National Security Adviser. She said, that Joe Biden is missing the opportunity.

He has not defined to the American people, what the endgame is, why we're spending this money.
And, well, he tried to find the exit strategy beyond regime change in Russia. And there's no answer. She said, this is a sign of an extraordinary weak leadership, that Joe Biden has brought before foreign policy.

GLENN: Yesterday, we had our airports, the outward facing websites went down. It looks like the Russians, not the government, but probably a front organization, claimed responsibility, that they are going to start to hassle and make our lives more difficult by hacking into systems here.

JOHN: Yeah. That's -- that's something that we're seeing increasingly -- and including indictments. There was an indictment about three weeks ago, of some Iranian hackers, who were targeting a key infrastructure, particularly energy infrastructure.

You see the airport this week, and we know the Iranians successfully hacked a database. Let's keep this in mind. The guy who went on 60 Minutes, said, we have a completely secure proof election in 2020.

We later found out a year later, because of an indictment, because of the FBI and Justice Department. That wasn't true. That, actually, beginning in the summer of 2020, our homeland security department, the agency knew that we had been penetrated by Iran.

They were able to get into one state's voter database, and steal 150,000 American's identity. That's a really remarkable revelation that was kept from us, during the 2020 election. The infiltration of state-sponsored hackers is growing every day in our infrastructure.

It's way behind being insulated. I think that's one of the concerns. We have hospital systems. Energy systems. Water systems. All being penetrated and tested every day. And this is the next front of warfare. Right?

The digital warfare is -- I remember it about a decade ago, was Leon Podesta, the CIA director said we're going to have a digital Pearl Harbor, one day, because we're just not ready for it.

And I think the efforts to get that digital Pearl Harbor, started by our enemies, are growing by the day.

GLENN: If you could, hang on for one minute. I want to take a one-minute break, and then back in with John Solomon, who is just -- he's one of the guys that I really trust. If you don't read just the news, you should. Justthenews.com.

All right. Tonight, when you climb into bed. You're going to be lying down on excellent sheets with maximum comfortability. Or are you just going to get the average sleep?

I'm something of a sheet snob, or I like to say, aficionado. I could tell you, my favorite sheets, and I mean this, bar none. Are the Giza dream sheets. They're from MyPillow. They're absolutely fantastic. I've been sleeping on them for years. I wouldn't trade them for my life. And you can get them for the lowest price ever, new. 39.99. Really good sheets. Cost a fortune.

Well, these are made with Giza cotton. Best cotton comes from Egypt. These are Giza cotton.

And they're fantastic. I do not know about the thread count. I don't really care. I just know, they're super soft. 39.99. Right now. They're as low as they've ever been. So I want you to go to MyPillow.com. MyPillow.com. Click on the radio listener special square.

Check out the flash sale on the Giza dream sheets, along with limited time offers. Enter the promo code Beck, or call 800-966-3117. 800-966-3117.

Promo code Beck. Right now, at MyPillow.com. Ten-second station ID.
(music)
John, I don't know if you follow the story. I watched it a couple of times. First, the New York Times came out and said, that's a conspiracy theory. And then the very next day, Gasgon from LA put a warrant out for the arrest of this voting machine company, and he was arrested, I think in Michigan, or she, and brought to California because of the transfer of information to China, which they say was a mistake.

But I'm not sure I believe that. Do you know what this story is really all about?

JOHN: Well, this is a really important story.

First off, it's a far left prosecutor, that has brought it.

But acknowledging that this company, this Michigan-based company appears to have stored valuable data about the election poll workers and election system workers on a server in China.

And that this was not only a breach of the contract according to the district attorney's office. It was a national security risk. And it shows, once again, just like the Iran hacking deal we talked about a few days ago. Our foreign adversaries are looking for any way to steal data. To steal identities in America. To influence elections. To influence corporate business decisions.

And this possibility, this idea that this was sitting on the servers, while they were trying to penetrate or not. The indictment is silent on that issue right now.

But it shows it was -- at the very least, very sloppy. And put, you know, this software. This poll chief software, in a location where it could easily be penetrated by the Chinese.

GLENN: But here's what doesn't make sense to me. That's a violation of a corporate contract. What's the criminality here?

JOHN: False representations in the contract, is basically the -- and if you look at the indictment, right? There's a representation that they weren't doing what they were doing.

But there's also, it says, in the charges that were released by the district attorney. A suspicion of theft of personal identifying information. A suspicion of theft.

We don't know more about that yet. We expect more of that, when the extradition of court hearings begin going on. But a lot of cross-pollination. A Michigan county -- L.A. County working together to unravel this case. And bring in this indictment. A lot of eyes are on this, because it goes against the grain of a lot of narratives of the left. But in this case, one of the left's favorite. Gasgon, he's the one bringing this case, and my understanding is, the FBI has been involved. There's a lot of different pieces of -- different players still trying to figure it out --

GLENN: Yeah. That's one of the reasons why I don't trust.

Oh, it's Gasgon and the FBI. Oh, well, I feel safe now. One last thing. You know, I'm seeing something. And I just can't believe is true. But I think it is. They're not going to do anything about Hunter Biden, are they?

JOHN: We'll see. Listen, I think there was a significant amount of activity before the grand jury this spring, that brought forth the sort of evidence that would support charges for tax evasion, or tax violations.

I think for improper foreign lobbying, is one of the things that I worried about people being asked about in the grand jury. This gun charge came in late. Obviously other people have been charged with lying about using drugs, on their -- on their federal firearms license.

So I think at the end of the day, right after the election, the prosecutors will make a final decision. I think there are three outcomes, right?

One, they could cut a deal. That's the thing -- most likely thing will happen. Although a lawyer for Hunter says, two, there will be an indictment. Or, three, there will be some dispute, between the line U.S. attorney and the main justice, that will freeze this up.

But the evidence is now pouring out into the public. It will be hard for the Justice Department, not to take any action.

GLENN: And if the Democrats control the House and the Senate, will they be able to do anything about this?

JOHN: That's a great question. Right?

There may be less pressure for prosecutors to take a final action, and wrap this up. Because they know the Republicans won't be able to get it. I think one of the things to push this along. Has been the outcome of this election. The idea that Republicans may have one chamber of the Congress throwing -- putting pressure on the Justice Department. Hey, we don't want this out there -- about anything.

GLENN: Right.

JOHN: I think that's been the driving force a lot.

GLENN: Right. John Solomon.

Thank you so much always for all your work. Again, as I've said, if you've not read Just the News, you should start your day with Just the News. Justthenews.com. He is the CEO and editor and chief of John Solomon.

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

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?

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