RADIO

Amazon TERRORIZED them. Now, they're sharing a HUGE WIN.

It’s a 21st century horror story: Amazon’s massively dangerous ties with our federal government resulted in the intimidation, terrorization, and near-financial destruction of one innocent family. Amy Nelson’s husband, Carl, was accused of a crime by the tech giant just months before the COIVD pandemic took root throughout the U.S. And through civil asset forfeiture, the Nelsons nearly lost everything they had. But through sheer determination, this family never gave up fighting against tyranny. In this clip, Amy joins Glenn to detail a recent, HUGE WIN over Amazon. Plus, she explains why Amazon and Jeff Bezos are FAR more dangerous than the everyday American may realize…

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Win one, for the good guys. Amy Nelson is here. She is -- she is the founder of the riveter -- riveter.com. She's also been on our show multiple times. She was on our government's completely out of control lookout show.

She was not somebody who -- I'll get it right. Amy, you weren't a fan of me, or anything before. Right?

AMY: It wasn't that I wasn't a fan of you. It's that I had been a Democrat my entire life. And been very active in progressive politics.

GLENN: So you hated me, that's what you're saying.

AMY: I did not.

GLENN: I mean, wanted to throw that in. Because we're strange bedfellows. And I think more and more people need to find themselves with strange bedfellows. Because if we have the Bill of Rights in common, we can be friends with anybody.

That's the way America used to get along.

We believe in individual rights and the Bill of Rights.

So, Amy, your husband was accused by Amazon of -- of a whole bunch of crimes. And the DOJ came into your life, and destroyed your life.

Can you give me like a 30, 40-second rundown of what happened?

AMY: Yeah. My husband works for Amazon Web Services, the cloud competing division of Amazon for eight years. He works sourcing real estate.

A year after he left, Amazon accused him of a crime. And we learned of that, because the FBI knocked on our door. My husband then spent three years, fighting these allegations. The allegations was this esoteric crime called private sector honest services fraud, which is a process crime. Like witness tampering. And over the course of three years, Amazon had the government seize all of our bank accounts. The FBI raided our home.

And then they sued my husband in the eastern district of Virginia.

GLENN: It's funny. Virginia seemed -- isn't Amazon a Seattle-based company, or did they move out to Virginia? Is that why?

AMY: Well, Amazon is a Seattle-based company, and my husband lived and worked in Seattle.

But Amazon chose northern Virginia, as its second headquarters.

You know, Jeff Bezos bought the newspaper there. He is trained by the football team there. And he is very close to the government.

GLENN: So you alleged, when you came on, that none of these things were true.

And we believed you. None of these things were true.

And that Bezos was using the government, to crucify, and prosecute your husband, so they didn't have to pay 100 million-dollar fine, on another unrelated topic, correct?

AMY: Correct.

GLENN: So last time I spoke to you, you said, it was going to -- finally going to trial. But it was a civil suit. Because the Justice Department never brought any charges.

AMY: That is correct. And the civil trial is scheduled to start on May 3rd, just in a few weeks.

GLENN: And what has happened?

AMY: Something really extraordinary happened.

Glenn, last week, the federal judge issued an order, tossing out almost all of Amazon's claims before trial. Essentially saying, these claims aren't even strong enough to warrant a jury trial. We can throw them out today.

The judge said, that my husband didn't even violate Amazon. He said, there was no fraud. He tossed out Amazon's sensational racketeering claim, which was Amazon stepping in with the DOJ and trying to prove a crime. And the federal judge said, ejector strong enough to merit a trial.

GLENN: Wow. That is a huge loss for them.

AMY: Yeah.

GLENN: He tossed out six of the seven. What did he leave?

AMY: He left a claim that is called civil conspiracy to purposefully interfere with the contract. And it's a little bit confusing. Because it's a question of, can Amazon prove that there was a conspiracy for a bunch of people to interfere with my husband's employment contract.

But, again, it's not that my husband didn't violate his employment contract. So we're still trying to kind of work through what that means.

GLENN: Okay.

So there's no jail time.

Maybe there would be a fine.

But this is a huge win, kind of. Because if you have this tossed out of court. How did Amazon get the DOJ to persecute you guys, for what? Two years. Two and a half years.

AMY: Three years. So, you know, Glenn. There's a lot of things at play here. It's a huge win.

And we have to see if Amazon even decides to go trial, to try to prove that last claim.

But I think I've been sitting here for the past few days. Amazon is too big.

They have too much money.

If a company can go and spend billions of dollars, to try to lobby the federal government to bring criminal charges, for civil forfeiture.

To deprive Americans of their bank account. And then to delay and enforce American employees to spend millions of dollars, essentially proving that he didn't break his employment contract. That company is too big. Like, that is not how this is supposed to work. Amazon employs over a million Americans. This is frightening.

GLENN: Well, it's not just a million Americans. They have all kinds of people from the Department of Justice.

And other three-letter agencies. That truly frightening.

Because they're providing the cloud servers for the US government. And for all of these agencies.

That's -- that's a lot of power.

AMY: Yeah. I think most Americans don't understand, that Amazon stores the secrets of the FBI, the NSA, CIA, everybody.

So, Of course, when they go to these agencies, and ask for something. The biases of agencies will delete them.

They want to, right?

We entrust them. We entrust Jeff Bezos with our national secrets, full stop. That's pretty terrifying, particularly when -- Glenn, I don't know how to frame it otherwise.

But it seems like this a modern day robber barons. He's out there using the courts to try to imprison his employees when they're not even liable for breaching the employment contract.

And also, what bothers me in this story, is the use of civil asset forfeiture. When the government can come in and just take people's assets. Remember, it was Jamie Dimon from JP Morgan Chase. That last week, in his shareholder meeting, said, we need to start seizing farms, because we need to rapidly grow wind and solar energy. And we can't get enough farmland

So we just need to start seizing it. Ford is seize all of these farms down south, they announced over the weekend.

The civil asset forfeiture. When they can just take things. And they don't have to return it, even.

If you're not guilty, they don't have to do anything. Did you ever get an apology for any of that?

AMY: No, Glenn. In fact, we had to agree not to sue the government in order to get our money back.

GLENN: That's crazy. That is just crazy.

AMY: Glenn, they can do it secretly. Like, we've still never seen the affidavit, that were the basis of seizing our money.

Like, we don't even know what Amazon told the government to get them to take that money.

But I do know the federal judge and the lawsuit, that he just tossed out all these cases, said that Amazon had misrepresented there were damages. There were no damages.

Misrepresented their code of conduct. And what it said.

They made all these misrepresentations. So did the government take our money based on those misrepresentations? And who gets held accountable for all of this?

GLENN: Nobody.

AMY: Nobody. Right.

And they will go and start taking American's farmlands, because they want to, they'll just find a way. Right? I think powerful people. Powerful entities. Powerful corporations and banks can really manipulate the law, the way they want to.

GLENN: So you walk away, at this point, pretty happy.

AMY: I mean, I do. But I have to say, I'm still afraid, that Amazon and its CEO, Andy Jassy might go back to the DOJ and say, please go do what we couldn't do. Get these people.

GLENN: But how?

On what?

AMY: I don't know. But, Glenn, they're -- how did they do this for the past two years?

Right. Just, I don't know.

GLENN: This is no way. This is no way for an American to live.

When you were afraid of the government, when you have done no wrong.

Because they're in bed with a corporation, that needs the -- you know, needs the trouble pinned on somebody else.

That is terrifying. That's not America.

AMY: It really is not. And I'm still afraid the FBI will knock on my door, and try to take my husband and our four daughters. And it -- there's so many things about this, right?

Glenn, your point at the beginning, you have the Bill of Rights. That's what should unite us.

And to think we're in a constant fight, between Democrats and Republicans about smaller issues. When if you look up, when you look up, corporations are really -- because many reasons, able to direct politicians of all stripes and all colors, right? Of what to do. And how to act.

And I think it's truly terrifying to me, somehow progressives are these massive supporters of the FBI.

GLENN: It's -- yeah. Go ahead.

AMY: Yeah. We look back, five, ten, 15 years ago. The Democrats are out there screaming about the FBI's overreach.

And spying on citizens.

And now I think because Democrats feel like the FBI will go after Trump for them.

That they're the good guys.

GLENN: It's really amazing to me. That I was listening to you talk about these big businesses.

And the FBI, right before you -- you brought this up.

And I thought, you know. Ten years ago, 15 years ago.

I would have been thinking right now, oh, jeez.

This is not going to fly well with the audience.

Because you'll sound too progressive.

Now, you don't sound like a progressive at all.

You sound like a conservative. It's so bizarre.

AMY: It's a strange world. And I find myself out there talking to my progressive friends about this all the time now. And I really feel like Americans of all political persuasions are being distracted to forget our freedoms, to forget our freedoms.

Right?

And it's terrifying. Because our freedoms really matter. They really do.

GLENN: Amy, thank you so much.

Tell us what happens. Keep us up to speed, when you -- when you get that last one, cleared up.

And my best to you and your family and the kids.

AMY: I know.

Thanks for telling our story, Glenn.

GLENN: You bet. Amy Nelson. She's from TheRiveter.com.

It's an amazing American horror story.

TV

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

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

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

RADIO

Is there a sinister GOP plan to SELL national parks?

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

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

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

Chris Rufo, I really respect.

I'm totally against selling this land.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No, and it still isn't.

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

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

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

That's not what they mean by affordable housing.

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

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

There's plenty of land all around.

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

Some of it is like the surface of the moon!

But no. No. No.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yada. Yada. Yada.

More about Teddy Roosevelt.

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

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

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

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

Let me give you just my perspective on this.

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

I don't hike myself.

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

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

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

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

But can we just look at the perspective here?

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

How much land do we have?

Well, that's about the size of France.

And Germany. Poland.

And the United Kingdom, combined!

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

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

Okay?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And those policies are real.

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

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

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

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

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

The federal government.

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

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

It's not going to happen.

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

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

Okay.

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

Why is it hard to access that land?

Well, let me give you a story. Yellowstone.

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

But it's the American bison.

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

Did you know that?

Here's almost an endangered species.

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

Ranchers, I would love to raise real American bison.

And I would protect them.

I would love to have them roaming on my land.

But you can't!

You can't.

Real bison, you can't.

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

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

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

We will thin the herd.

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

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

I have pictures of piles of bald eagles.

That they'll never show you.

They'll never show you.

You can't have a bald eagle feather!

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

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

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

And nobody says a thing.

Okay.

But we're talking about lands.

States can't afford to manage it.

Okay. But how can the federal government?

Now, this is really important.

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

Our entitlement programs, all straight infrastructure, crumbling.

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

Because they can always print money.

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

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

Everything is falling apart..

So what's the real plan here?

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

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

But the real goal is 5050.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sorry, under Biden.

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

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

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

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

And all of the banks are like, okay.

Well, you can't pay anymore.

What happens in a default?

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

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

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

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

That is really important!

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

So what is the alternative?

RADIO

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

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

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Alan Dershowitz, how are you?

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

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

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

It's insane!

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

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

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

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

GLENN: Okay.

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

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

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

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

Some states go the other way.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You leave it to the public.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Experts have become partisans, just like everybody else.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Take guns, for example.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And these are rights that are enshrined.

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

ALAN: Oh, no.

There's a big difference, of course.

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

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

Whether it could be well-regulated by states.

Look, these are interesting debates.

And the Supreme Court, you know, decides these.

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have an article today, with gay stone.

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

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

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

Judges are supposed to judge.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So no.

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

GLENN: Last question.

I am proudly for Israel.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

GLENN: Should we drop a bomb?

ALAN: Yes, we should.

GLENN: Our plane drop the bomb?

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

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

GLENN: What is the preventive state out, Alan?

ALAN: Just now. Just now.

Very well on Amazon.

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

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

GLENN: Okay.

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

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

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

THE GLENN BECK PODCAST

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

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

Watch Glenn's FULL Interview with Shad Sullivan HERE