RADIOJune 09, 2025

“We’re looking at alternative medicine”: VA Secretary reveals MAJOR changes

U.S. Secretary of Veterans Affairs Doug Collins joins Glenn Beck to review some of the major changes he’s making at the VA, including the possible approval of alternative medicine. For too long, veterans have felt that the VA has failed them. But Secretary Collins promises that’s “not going to be acceptable” anymore.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Doug Collins is with us. He's with the US secretary of Veterans Affairs. Can we privatize the VA? What's being done with the VA? We talk to Doug Collins in 60 seconds. First, let me tell you about the International Fellowship of Christians and Jews. When you give to the International Fellowship of Christians and Jews, you're just not making a donation, you're providing essential support to Israel's most vulnerable. And your contribution helps deliver food to the hungry, medicine to the sick, and shelter to those who are displaced by conflict. Again, perfect and the possible. The perfect is everything, you know, goes back to what it should be, where we're all living peacefully, next to one another. That's not really possible, right now. But here's what is possible: If I help, maybe -- maybe we can strengthen the Jewish people to fight their own wars, and we don't have to get involved in it. Let them do their own stuff, so we don't have to get involved. If we want the government to do less, that means we have to do more. And I want to support the good people of Israel. I believe the Bible commands us to do it, or, you know, at least highly recommends it by saying, I will bless those who bless you.

Okay. So let's bless them. Because I don't know about you, but I need all the blessings I can get. Call 888-488-IFCJ. Our country needs these blessings. 888-488-IFCJ. Let's not have the government do it. Let's do it ourselves, through IFCJ.org. Every dollar helps.

IFCJ.org. 888-488-IFCJ.

Doug Collins is joining us now. US Secretary of Veterans Affairs. Doug, how are you, sir?

DOUG: I'm good, Glenn. How about you?

GLENN: I'm really good. I can't thank you for everything you guys are doing at the VA. I mean, I just think there are so many of our veterans that have been treated so miserably, they're killing themselves, like they've never -- never done before. I mean, I -- I know that you heard some of the things that we've talked about here, where, you know, people are just killing themselves trying to -- you know, trying to make a point, that we've got to -- the VA is -- it is in dire need of transformation. So thank you for caring, and thank you for doing everything you are to transform it.

DOUG: I appreciate it. I appreciate it. There's a lot.

GLENN: Can we get out of this? How can we get and privatize as much as of this as we can?

DOUG: Well, I think the issue of privatization is probably not the right answer in this. I think what we have is, is we have the tools that President Trump and I, frankly have worked on when I was in Congress, a couple years ago. Was actually beginning to make this system less about the VA, and more about the veterans. And that is getting care out of the centralization services all the time.

Everything having to do with coming to our hospital, but using our community. One of the big issues that's always brought up is privatization. It's a valid conversation, but it's not something we're looking at.

Mainly because, the thing gets separated so much from the VA is the VA has the other issue, the same issues as the private and the public hospital, and that's in recruitment doctors, a lot of other things going on.

But then the specialty nature of what's going on with them. The big thing we can do.

One, I think we can streamline this issue. To save money. That's what we're looking to do.

Literally, hundreds of millions of dollars of bad contracts. Bad subsidies. But it's the same as getting the veterans, especially those that you just talked about a minute ago, which are on my heart.

That are coming into a system that is not listening to their needs, and then in turn, believing there is nowhere else to turn for them, and many of them are taking their own life. And that's just something that will not be acceptable in anything.

But we're finally asking the right questions. And putting the -- the community. And our private doctors. Our public doctors, to help get these veterans the help they need.

GLENN: Okay. So let's talk about a couple of things that you are doing.

You know, you had a massive backlog of cases. And you've brought -- you've brought that backlog down over 25 percent in 100 days. What did you do? And what does it mean, to the veterans?

DOUG: Well, it means. It's several things. What it means is leadership. That what gets measured gets done. I think there was an accountability factor that we have. And I brought that to us now, an accountability factor that says, you will either do your job, or you will not work for us.

And so 260,000 backlogs. Let me explain what that means. So 260,000 cases of people asking or applying for benefits -- disability benefits, that went over 125 days. Okay? It should never have been there.

260,000. We've cut that to under 200,000, maybe 108.

We've also begun, because that is now freeing up work. We're now actually processing more. And you remember the greater scenario, that all the mainstream media, the New York Times, and the Post said, if you brought people back to work, it would be terrible.

It would be awful. We actually are processing more claims per day right now, than we ever have in our history. We actually are processing more than we are getting in, for the first time in a long time. What it took was simply saying, no, you're going to do this. It's not a choice anymore.

What I inherited, a department, in which -- how do you say it? If it feels good, do it. You know, everybody was just operating on their own time zones. And I said, we're not going to do that anymore. The VA is going to actually be about the veterans. So that's how we've done it, and it makes the difference. And not calling your congressman. Or calling everybody else. They're getting what they've earned, and we're fulfilling that promise

GLENN: So help me out on this. You know, we reached out to you and your team after I interviewed a dad from San Antonio last night, whose son Mark took his own life in April, right in front of the VA hospital. Because he believed he didn't receive adequate care for pain he was having. Mental health issues, et cetera, et cetera.

Speak to the dad who feels like the VA has failed his son, and what you're trying to do to make this right.

DOUG: I will just as I did one night, I was actually on with him. And it shows you a difference, Glenn. I do whatever I can, to say, look, when we're doing it wrong. Or we're doing an issue, that we need to at least address. And in this situation, I think this is something that we need to address. And I did this with him before. Is my heart hurts. And I think it shows that the problem we have in our system, that has drug itself into a point, where we have just sort of handled the mental health process.

We've handled the traumatic brain injury. The PTS issue. In such a way, that this is sort of the way we do it.

And, you know, I've got -- I'm telling our doctors. I'm telling our folks that we partner with, nonprofits and others, saying, we have to try something different. We're not moving the needle.

Since 2008, the suicide number has not changed in this country, and yet we're spending $588 million or more, every year, to quote, prevent it. But yet, in our services, still treating it many times with medicine.

We have got to do a better job of getting more counseling in there. We're getting more clinical. But also something -- I took from -- we've been looking at from many of our veterans groups and others, including folks we've been dealing with.

With Bobby Kennedy as well, and HHS. We're looking at alternative medicine. We're looking at possible use of psychedelics, along with counseling.

Anything we can, to get them the help that they need, so they don't feel like the VA is not listening to them. Or they're getting handed a bottle of pills. And that's something we don't need to be looking at.

They need to be getting help, and not just a medical condition.

GLENN: I mean, it's -- it's interesting to me. That the Germans look -- handed a lot of their soldiers, bottles of pills. So that they can fight, fight, fight, fight. And become animals. And we train our people differently. Humanely. But we train our people to be able to go in and pull the trigger when they have to.

But is it fair to say, we spend all that money doing that. But when they come home, we don't spend enough money and enough time to try to deprogram that. To bring them back into our society, and how to deal with all the stuff that they were trained to do.

Is that fair?

DOUG: Yeah. I think it's a fair assumption. And I think it's also the changing face of warfare. And I'll quit in just a moment here. In World War II, I had, you know, I've had -- they went with only two things in mind. They were either going to win or come home dead.

They had no time frame to come home.

As war as progressed. Now, it's -- you bring it up the last 20 years.

That you have generations.

Less than -- about one and a half percent of population, have participated in foreign soil, in the battle. But we've done it over and over and over again.

So what we're having, these folks, four to six, eight years who have all this stuff built up. We have broken them down to become the soldier, the marine, that we needed.

GLENN: The machine.

DOUG: The machine, and then they come back out, and when they're doing so much, they never have time to process. And for some of them, they get out within four, to six, to eight years. This is something that is not enough time to get into the system. To say, this is how I copy. So you've hit it exactly, in the sense that we're not spending the time in the transition.

This is why Secretary of Defense and I, on an unprecedented level, it did not happen that we found before, where us, as secretaries sat down and said, we've got a transition problem.

And so it's owned by the DOD. They do the transition of something coming out. If anything happens, then I get blamed for it. So I just don't think -- we've got to fix this. We've got to start working -- it may be -- you may own it. But I get blamed for it, and I'm not going to get blamed for something I can't do.

So right now, we're working on getting that transition better so we have a warm handoff, especially for those who are hurting already, to come into our system, and receive all of -- you know, white glove treatment, where they're coming in with a warm handoff, so they have a better chance of affecting change. And here's another thing.

I open it back up, to where we're going to parter with nonprofits. We will partner with groups, that are already doing good stuff.

And instead of us wasting money that we don't need. I will use other groups that are already in this arena to say, help us here. And connect them with --

GLENN: Yeah. It always -- it kills me.

When you have something. For instance, in a different subject.

When you have something like AA. That works. That always works.

And then you find these people, who are running these centers. Who are like, well, we're going to change it. We will do our own thing.

It's like, but that works. Why not just do that?

It's free! Why not just do that?

DOUG: Glenn, you would be amazed what I see here.

We're already starting to fix. And so, you know, we're taking out -- so that our doctors aren't having to go through a second opinion or third opinion, to get somebody to the help they need.

We now actually will be taking amputees. I have real experience with this. My daughter is in a wheelchair.

We will make them going to primary care. To PTs. Before they could just get reset for a new chair.

That's bullcrap. We're cutting that out. So they get a better experience.

We give them the earned respect that they have.

GLENN: Oh, my goodness.

You know, a lot of critics, Democrat lawmakers, especially look at the proposed 15 percent staff reduction, that you -- you know, are -- are championing here.

And they're saying, that will lead to a shortage of doctors and nurses.

How do you plan to protect the front line health care services for veterans and cut 15 percent of staff?

DOUG: Well, first off, the 15 percent is the goal.

That was something the president, we will see what you can do.

And if you don't set a goal, nothing gets done, Glenn.

Your listeners know that.

Can you do that? If you can, how do you do that?

What we did, we knew, and the president knew it, the VA is a really unique organization. With all this everyday facing department, that we have dealing with the medical kind of conditions that we deal with. So what we did early on, we said, we won't put in jeopardy, doctors and nurses, that the Democrats and others are lying about. We protected over 300,000 positions within our health care system and our disability rating system, that said, look, you're not even eligible to take an early retirement.

You're not eligible.

Because we're not going to cut the various things that we need.

But I've got literally thousands of other employees, on duplicated HR processes, contracting processes.

You know, human resource processes.

I mean, I was amazed here. And I talk about a permissive attitude.

We were supposed to centralize our payroll several years ago. The previous administration said, no. You want to -- I figured out, we had over 60 locations doing their own payroll!

GLENN: What!

DOUG: And a lot bigger expense. So this -- look, here's what has come up. Everybody talking about -- GAO has said, for ten years, we've been (inaudible). The Democrats, Republicans, everybody on the Hill, and I've said this in my hearings, all of you, I can show you comments where you say you want efficiency, you want the VA to work better. And yet the first moment I start saying, here's some changes that need to be made, then all of a sudden, it's about the worker. Well, I believe our VA workers are great folks. The VA is not a jobs program. The VA is a service organization.

And we're changing that mindset.

GLENN: Have you thought of -- I'm sure you have. But have you thought of doing things like in a private company, you know, I like to incentivize people and say, hey. We are way overbudget. Or we're trying to make this a better process one way or another.

Just tell us. And then we'll give you the employee, you know, a kickback, or a bonus, or whatever. If that works. And it came from you.

Have you thought about incentivizing the people to streamline, and to save?

DOUG: Yeah. We're looking at that. I've been saying it everywhere I go.

Identify been in 16 states. In our facilities, that I'm not even close to halfway yet.

Everywhere I go, that's exactly what I'm telling them.

Unfortunately, I'm bound on how I can offer incentives and such.

Also offering and saying, hey. How can we make this better?

I found that you empower American workers, Glenn. You empower our American people to do good. They will do good.

When you believe in them, like I believe in them. And say, I want you to go be the best that you can be. And if you see something stupid, you let us know. And we'll fix it.

They will go out and do things.

Also, here's the other alternative. Also, good people aren't working where bad people are tolerated.

And we're making it very much an emphasis to get rid of bad people who are not wanting to do good things. It used to be a culture of failure up here.

Or a failure sideways. If you failed, we just put you somewhere over the top.

That stopped, the minute I came in.

And we're getting rid of people who can't do the job.

GLENN: Doug, I really appreciate it.

I love the fact that you're a servant of the Lord. And, you know, so I know your priorities are right, and that's on people.

So thank you for what you're doing. We appreciate you.

DOUG: I appreciate it. Anything you need, you let me know, okay?

GLENN: You got it. Doug Collins. US Secretary of Veterans Affairs.

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