RADIOJune 02, 2025

Actor WARNS Google’s new AI could be the DEATH of Hollywood

Google has released Veo 3, the new version of its AI video generator, that includes the ability to generate sound effects and dialogue as well. Is this the beginning of the end for Hollywood as we know it? Glenn Beck speaks with actor Zachary Levi (“Shazam!”, “Tangled”), who has been warning about this day for years. Levi comments on this game-changing technology, which is one of the reasons he’s building Wyldwood Studios, a “new Hollywood” outside Austin, Texas.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Zachary Levi is with us. Hi, Zach, how are you?
ZACHARY: Hey, good morning, Glenn. Doing all right. How are you doing?
GLENN: I'm really good. I'm not in your business. How concerned are you, by what Google released this week?

ZACHARY: I mean, I'm -- I'm very concerned. I mean, I think -- you and I talked about this when I came on your show last, and I hate to sound like a doomer and gloomer. But, I mean, this is something I've been foreseeing for a really long time. I've been banging this drum for a very long time, and trying to wake people up and say, hey, listen, technology, it moves exponentially.

This is one of the things that I think most people just don't understand. Whether it's people in my industry or other industries. And I say, yes. This is knocking on the doorstep of entertainment right now. But understand that AI is knocking on the doorstep of all of our industries. Your industry.
Radio.

GLENN: Yeah. All of it. All of it.

ZACHARY: Anything that can be reported and broadcasted.

But every industry. I mean, we are -- there are huge, you know, experts in many fields, that say, within a year, two years, you start with five years, every white-collar job will be gone.

And a lot of blue-collar jobs will be right behind that. You have to recognize, that AI is not just moving exponentially, but also humanoid robots. And the development of humanoid robots is developing exponentially. And exponential growth is something that people just don't understand.

Most people see growth as kind of just, you know, multiple -- meaning like, okay. Every year, it gets twice as good. No, no, no. It doesn't get twice as good every year. It gets ten times as good, then a hundred times as good. Then a thousand times as good. And so on, and so forth. And so years ago, I was telling people, guys, if what we have right now. For example, two years ago, AI was generating images. And, you know, but, you know, humans had six fingers. People said, this is -- look at this. This is never going to get good. You can't even get the amount of fingers right on people's hands. Yeah. Yeah.

Right now, it can't do that. But six months later, it did. Six months after that, you had video.

And now you've got video with audio, and it's almost indiscernible, as you've been seeing with these new examples. It's almost indiscernible. People are saying, yeah. I can still tell.

Right now, you can. But six months from now. A year from now. Two years from now. We're going to --

GLENN: I don't even think that long.

ZACHARY: No. Not that long. So people have to wake up.

So for people in my industry, I think that, yes. We should all be very, very concerned.

But everyone should be very concerned.

And it's not even just -- for example, this could very much replace my job.

This is partly why I'm building Wildwood studios in Austin, Texas.

It's always been the 25-year calling that God has put on my life, to create a better Hollywood.

To give artists a better life. A better work-life balance. To give audiences better content.

These are all things we deserved for a very long time. AI is the kind that -- the most galvanizing force in all of this.

Because if we don't do something about it.
If we don't hold the line, if we don't build the ark, which is really kind of what I've always felt on my life. I felt this kind of Noah calling on my life.
Hey, listen, a flood is coming.

It's not going to be water. It will be something completely different. That is AI.

You can build the ark. You can at least save as many of those jobs, 2 by 2, as you can. But if you don't build the ark, then the flood just wipes everything out. Yeah, go ahead.

GLENN: So -- so -- let me -- let me interrupt you on that.

Because I believe -- I mean, I'm developing some things with aye. And I've been on this with AI as well.

And I believe you're absolutely right, that you have to get -- you know, you have to get into a vote. Because floods are coming. However, you have to -- you can't dismiss it.

You have to, I think use some of the skills that it has, in a positive way.

Because I think it could. It will enhance as long as, you don't surrender to it. It will enhance what you can do.

So are you talking about, you know, building something that has no use for AI?

And it's just this island? Or are you saying that we'll use it, but we'll use it in ethical ways.

And we will never allow it to become the master. We will always use it as a tool?

ZACHARY: Yes. That's exactly right. So I'm a firm believer, and have been for many years. That philosophically, you cannot stop progress. You can only hope to guide it.

That is the bottom line, right?

GLENN: Right. Right.

ZACHARY: So it would be to look at new technology. By the way, to do some really cool things in this world. Example being, we're at the brink of nearly having our ear pods. Apple I tink will start, but other companies will be right behind it, but not simultaneously.

You will have real time language translation. It's going to happen. It's happening very, very soon.

Now, that's incredible. That's something that as the human race, we've all been wanting. Since the tower of Babel.

Right?

For all of us to be able to communicate across the world. No language barriers across the world.

That's huge. That's a huge leap forward for mankind. That will absolutely displace what is a smaller, let's say industry of translators. Right?

There are many translators in the world. It's not the biggest industry let's say. And I feel for those people. And you have to be very conscious about trying to rehome them in other jobs.

But that's -- you always to have ask yourself, is the juice worth the squeeze? Is it ultimately worth it for the betterment of all of us?

So I don't think we can't embrace AI. We must embrace AI. But we must do it in an ethical way as possible. And be mindful, of what is it doing?

How is it disrupting, and how is it displacing jobs? Because that's the only thing we can do.

Now, when it comes to entertainment, there's going to be all kinds of ways to implement AI, to make the process more efficient, more enjoyable, and I have every intention of using AI like that.

I don't vilify it, you know, at large. But I think that we must be very mindful about how we implement it.

And still holding on to human creativity.

Human art and entertainment is -- is at the brink.

But I also believe, you know, with that example.

I think that not only is it necessary, you know, to prevent let's say the extinction of human art and entertainment.

There's also a market opportunity in this.

Similar to vinyl, for example, you -- once upon a time, all music. Vinyl records, that's what it was.

And when the cassette tape came out, and everyone said, well, I don't need vinyl anymore. I will go with these little rectangular plastic, you know, cassette tapes.

And I will do that. Then the CD came out.
More people loved vinyl, and then streaming. And now more people loved vinyl.

But the people that held on. The people that said, you know, everybody is going to zig, but I'm going to zag. I'm going to hold on to this.

I will keep -- I believe there' something special about it, unique about it. And sure enough, vinyl sales have gone up because people are looking for something that is more human, more tangible, more -- slightly imperfect. A little crackle. A little -- you know, whatever.

GLENN: Right.

ZACHARY: So that's what we intend to do. We intend to hold on. To -- I can't save the entire industry.

That's impossible. But I will try to save as many jobs as I can. And in doing so, providing audiences an alternative. And I think a lot of audiences will be looked for that alternative.

GLENN: Zach, I like you. I've bone this for a long time.

And I've put a lot of thought into -- because my job is at stake. Everybody's job is at stake. And I've always thought that, well, there's something about humans, that we have a different sense to us.

But I don't know if you heard. There was a study done of, I think 100,000 songs, and they did, you know, what's called hook testing to see which tested the best.

The -- I think it was seven out of the top ten were AI. And people didn't know it was AI. Seven out of the top ten.

ZACHARY: Yeah.

GLENN: We used to say,AI can't -- art can never be done.

So what is it that -- that you think is going to be unique quickly, I mean? I believe there is going to be a huge draw, back to hand-made, individual.

You know, when -- when machines came out.

And yet factories. They started to produce shirts.

Nobody wanted a homemade shirt.

Nobody wanted a handmade shirt.

They wanted one from the factory.

Now, handmade is the best of the best.

So there's going to be a -- a renaissance if untilled, of handmade and human made stuff.

But what is it right now, that will bridge this gap, that humans can do, that you don't think AI can do?

ZACHARY: Well, I think that, you know, obviously my performance, that's going to be huge. Right?

So people will -- in this -- in this rebound effect of people saying, oh, it just is flooded with ubiquitous content. A lot of people will say, I want something authentic.

And authenticity is the most important.

In fact, there is studies done, just from an energy level.

As humans, we have -- we produce an energy. When we have various emotions. Right?

And there's lower energy, if you're sad, depressed, and angry.

And higher energy is when you're joyful and happy. And you feel loved.

But there's an energy even higher than love, as they assessed. And it's authenticity. That's the highest energetic level that we can all reach. And so people yearn for that. They really do. So my performance obviously is going to be that.

Sports is going to have a big -- a lot of people are investing in -- in sports. And live performance.

Because that is going to go over the longest. At least as long as -- you know, let's say, robots and holograms. That's going to start to kind of eat into that a little bit.

We will see how long that goes. But ultimately --

GLENN: I have to tell you. May I say something on that.

Have you been to London, and seen the Abba experience?

ZACHARY: I haven't. I am very well aware of that.

GLENN: Yeah. It's beyond incredible.

My son and I said -- I didn't tell my daughter, who was a teenager at the time. Seventeen years old. That Abba wasn't really performing. We just didn't tell her.

And two songs into it, I said, do you think they're real? Does it look like they're real?

I said, what are you talking about? I said, those aren't real. Those aren't people. She said, what are you talking about?

She couldn't believe it. The first couple of songs, my son who was 18, 17 at the time, kept looking at me, saying, Dad, this changes everything. This is not good. This changes everything.

And, I mean, everything is just about to turn upside down.

ZACHARY: Yeah. Yeah. It's all ready.

In front of our eyes, it's happening already.

GLENN: Yeah.

ZACHARY: And I am not one of those people. Many people who I talked to. A common pushback I get is people saying, well, it will never be able to fully replicate -- let's say human emotion. Or -- and I just don't believe that.

GLENN: I don't believe it.
ZACHARY: We, ourselves, we are an amalgamation of everything that we've taken in.

Right? So we ourselves are kind of LLMs. We scrape our entire lives. We scrape information from our parents, our community, people around us.

You know, the internet. Whatever. We're learning all the time. And then we are replicating from the things that we learn.

AI is doing that. And it's doing it at scale. And it's happening exponentially, and we're very, very close to it becoming AGI, general intelligence. Which is then a few steps away from super intelligence.

And at that point, it will be more intelligent and more capable, than just not any individual humans.

It will be more capable and more intelligent than the sum of all humanity. So we're stepping into some insane, insane territory.

And when we start, you know, empowering video agents like Google and others, that will keep popping up.

It -- it is terrifying to -- to acknowledge that. A lot of people just don't.

They're kind of burying their head in the sand.

Saying, no, no, no. It won't happen. It won't happen.

It's going to happen.

At that point, I think what we have to. What I'm hoping trump and the administration will be working on in earnest. Is legislation, that the very least requires all content that is AI generated to be watermarked. Right?

So therefore, we know, we can say, okay. I can't tell the difference. I don't know the difference.

I -- just by looking and listening to it, I can't tell if it's real humans doing it or not. The difference will be, that there will be some kind of watermarking that indicates that.

And, therefore, that's what people will be looking for. In the same way, if you go to the supermarket, and you're looking at blueberries. And these ones on the left, look the same as the right.

But there's packaging that says, these ones on the right are organic. These are the ones I'm looking for. I want the organic ones, that aren't sprayed. I'm trying to make certificated organic human-made content for free-range artists. That's what Wildwood Studios will be about. And also at Wildwood Studios, we won't just be making and really focusing and dedicated to making human films, television, music, and video games. But we will also be performing amphitheater in live performance venues. It's a one-stop shop so people can really know, that when they build there, they support us, they support humans in that process.

GLENN: Love it. Zachary, I appreciate it. Thank you so much.

And anything we can do to help you at Wildwood, let me know. Please, Zachary Levi. Wildwood Studios. Owner. Actor. He was Chuck. He was -- I mean, ton of great movies and everything else.

So Zachary Levi, thanks.

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?

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