RADIOApril 25, 2024

Is the Ark of the Covenant's Location KNOWN?

With some in Israel preparing to build a third Jewish Temple, and news of the possible sacrifice of a red heifer, many are asking: how much is about to change? And when the third Temple is built, will it require the Ark of the Covenant to be found? Can it even be found? Shoreshim Ministries founder Bill Cloud joins Glenn to explain it all. Plus, he reviews 4 places where the Ark is rumored to be and how likely each of those locations are to house the Ark: Is it in Ethiopia? Mt. Nebo? Outside the Old City? Or is it hidden in tunnels under the Temple Mount? Plus, Bill and Glenn discuss whether anything would have to happen to the Dome of the Rock for the Temple to be rebuilt.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Okay. So does the dome of the rock have to be destroyed for the third temple?

BILL: That's what most people think when they consider, you know, a building of the temple. Although, not everybody thinks that that is necessary.

And because there is some dispute about where the temple actually sat, where the Holy of Holies was.

There's a lot of religious -- where the dome of the rock is.

There was a gentleman, excuse me, back in the late '80s, early '90s.

A professor at the University. He felt that the holy of holies was actually a little north of the dome of the rock, at a place called the dome of the tablets of the spirits.

So most people believe that the dome of the rock has to go. There are some who believe that it's possible, that the temple could have -- it's not just north.

And technically speaking, could it be on the same platform. There's even a passage in revelation chapter seven. Where John is told to measure the temple of God. To leave the court outside. Leave that out.

The Gentiles. So some people have thought, well, maybe that is suggesting that there is going to be a temple, alongside either the dome of the rock.

Or the mosque. And, you know, I don't know. I find that problematic for a lot of reasons.

GLENN: Yeah. Yeah. Kind of like the burning of the red heifer right there, you know, in Arab territory.

It might be a problem with that.

BILL: That's right.

GLENN: So, you know, the Ark of the Covenant is where they kept the Ten Commandments. And I know it was real. I know it existed. I never, ever thought, we're going to find that.

We're going to find that? Is that important for the rebuilding of the temple?

BILL: Well, technically speaking. The second temple.

This is the one that was built after the Babylonian captivity. And then Herod expanded it. That, we did not have the Ark of the Covenant in it. And it was still considered the house of God.

So there's historical precedent for rebuilding the temple and not having the ark. However, there's prophecies that talk about, how the glory of the latter house is going to be greater than the first one. Referring to Solomon, which is referring to the Ark of the Covenant.

So technically, they could rebuild it without the ark.

However, there have been those in Israel, since the reunification of Jerusalem, who not only do they want to build a temple of the Temple Mount, but they want to find the Ark of the Covenant.

And there are a lot of traditions, as to what happened to the Ark of the Covenant.

Some say, that it went to Ethiopia, which I don't believe.

Some people say, that Jeremiah hid it in Mount Nebo which is Jordan. Some people believe it's outside the old city, buried. And then there are quite a number of people. And particularly, people close to the idea of rebuilding the temple.

Who believe it's buried somewhere, and underneath the Temple Mount.

That's not really a big secret honestly. It's all oar the internet.

GLENN: No. But I find, if you know something about the Temple Mount.

We'll come back to this in just a second.

Because there's somebody a labyrinth of temples underneath, et cetera, et cetera. But I can't see how those have not been, you know, exhaustively gone through by those of the Muslim religion.

We'll give more of those in just a second. Stand by.
(music)

GLENN: So for the Biden administration, running the American economy is just like shooting fish in a barrel. Except, you and I are the fish, and the American dollar is the barrel. And it's getting shot full of holes every day. They're engaged in ongoing war between bad foreign policy and bad domestic policy. To see, I guess, which one will bring us down first.

And if you don't see the need to shore up your hard-earned money with something that will act as a firewall against economic disaster, you're not looking very hard.

I want you to get the -- the booklet out, that you can get from Lear Capital, free.

It's a wealth protection guide.

They will also credit your account $250 towards the purchase of any gold or silver. I so highly recommend that you do this.

Gold is being sold at record numbers right now.

Because people who are paying attention, know, this doesn't end well. Please, just find out if it's right for you and your family.

Call Lear Capital now. 800-957-GOLD. 800-957-GOLD.

It's Lear Capital.
(music)

STU: You can now save 30 bucks off your Blaze TV subscription. Go to BlazeTV.com/Glenn. Need to use the promo code secure 2024. Thirty bucks off Blaze TV.
(OUT AT 10:29 AM)

GLENN: Welcome to the Glenn Beck Program.

We're glad you're here.

We're talking to bill cloud, as passover comes up on Monday.

We're talking about Biblical prophecies. Because there's a lot of stuff happening in the world right now.

Where a lot of people are going, you know. I think eye read about this someplace before.

But. No man knows when.

I mean, it could be a thousand years from now.

But it will happen at some point.

And we need to be aware. And I want to make this really clear. And, Bill, I think you'll back me up on this.

The Lord was not. He didn't look at Scriptures and was like, man. It doesn't have a snappy ending.

I want part two of this. So let me leave them on a scary cliffhanger.

The Book of Revelation was written, not to scare us.

But to say, look, all of these things will come to pass.

And it's almost. I think it's a blessing, that he says, and, you know, at this point, the seven-year clock starts to -- to tick off.

And he's telling us, this -- I'm not -- don't be shocked by these things.

They're going to be bad. And they're going to seem like they're never-ending.

But they're not.

And I'm telling you these things, so you have faith. And can make it through those times. Is that how you read it?

BILL: Absolutely. When you go to the Book of Revelation, by the way. And you look at the heading.

It says, the revelation of Jesus Christ. It does not say the revelation of the Antichrist or the tribulation or bold judgments and vile judges. It's about the Messiah. In fact, it says, in that book, that the essence of prophecy is the testimony of the messiah. The spirit of prophecy is about the messiah.

So everything about all this bad stuff, ultimately, it will point us to the messiah. Because all the bad stuff is just the Satan, and those who practice wickedness. Trying to stop the messiah from returning and sitting upon his throne in Jerusalem. To rule and reign.

So, yeah, it doesn't end on a bad note. It ends on what mankind, those who love and holiness had been longing for, since Adam was exiled from the garden.

A return, to be with God and God be in our midst. So that's the greatest thing that we could ever hope for. And all these things that we would see, is pointing us to that. So it's an excellent observation on your part.

It tells us these things. In fact, when he sat down on the Mount of Olives with his disciples. This is a -- by the way, Mount of Olives is where they will burn that red heifer when they do it. But anyway, he sits down on the Mount of Olives. And he says, tell me all these things, as you said, so you know this will happen.

But don't be dismayed. Don't fall in despair. I'm telling you these things, so that you will not be deceived.

I'm telling you these things, in advance, you won't be impulsive, and running after things that you shouldn't be running after. So when these things happen, keep your focus.

You know, kind of stay the course on what you know is true. So absolutely, I agree with you.

GLENN: Growing lawlessness is the sign of the last days. And we're seeing lawlessness, like I've never seen before.

Now, this has happened over and over again. Where societies have been lawless, and they collapse.

But lawlessness in the last days, it gives birth to the lawless one. Which is the Antichrist. Right?

BILL: Right. Exactly. That's exactly right. You know, a lot of people have thought, that the Antichrist have come to power. And he will create this lawless environment.

I believe a lawless environment gives birth to the lawless one. The final prediction of the Antichrist.

GLENN: To me, that -- that is -- makes sense.

We're -- you know, it was about 2000, oh, six. I was talking to Condoleezza Rice. And she used very specific language. She was on my show. And we were talking about, you know, what things look like now.

And, you know, what's coming our way. And she said, these things are birth pangs. Of the things to come.

And I thought, that was -- you know, rather unusual language for somebody to use.

Because it's very Scriptural.

BILL: Yeah. That's Biblical language for sure.

GLENN: Yeah, it is. And we are giving birth to something. I don't know if it's the -- you know, the Antichrist. Or the end times. Or just really, really bad times.

But there -- everything that we're seeing, these are like contractions and birth pangs. When things happen, you're like, ow. That hurt. And they're becoming faster and faster and closer and closer to one another.

We are giving birth to something.

BILL: Yeah. Well, in Hebrews, it's the birth pangs of the Messiah.

The Messiah is -- and his rule and reign, over the earth, that's what is -- that's what's being birthed. That's what's coming to fruition.

It's just in the process, the earth and everybody in it, has to go through these birth pangs.

Paul talks about how the earth is groaning and producing this travail and birth pangs. So that the sons of God will be revealed. That goes hand-in-glove with the messiah and his return. That's what's being birthed.

But just like in any birth, something that is wonderful. There's all this yuckiness, and pain and suffering.

Unfortunately, that pressure has to be there, to get those who are listening to the voice of the Lord, in the place that he wants them to be. And that is, not giving in to the lawlessness. Not giving in to the just crazy stuff, that society is pushing down our throats.

But to stay true, based on what Christians say.

So that's what's being birthed, as far as I'm concerned.

GLENN: Let me go back to the Ark of the Covenant. It seems like an Indiana Jones movie. It doesn't seem rule in some ways.

I know it is. Or I know it was.

But then it just kind of disappeared.

Nobody really knows what happened to it. People have been looking for it, forever.

And people are saying, it will be revealed. And some people believe it's under the Temple Mount.

I've stood, at the place where they say, right behind these stones, is where they think the holy of holies is.

Which is where they think the Ark of the Covenant is.

And it's a labyrinth of passageways and everything, underneath there. At least it used to be. But why -- why would it -- how could it possibly be still there, when, you know, the Muslims have been digging underneath the Temple Mount for a long time. And taking truckloads, of -- of dirt and antiquities out and just dumping them.

Yeah. Yeah. Well, how could it still be there?

You know, I don't know that I have the answer to that question. I will just say, my faith would say, if God wanted it to be there, it will still be there. He has a way of watching over things.

GLENN: Right.

But is it prophesied that it will be found and come back, or is this just something that some people think?

BILL: Well, the last time you see -- or you see a mention of the Ark of the Covenant. Is when Josiah tells the priest to take the Ark of the Covenant and put it in the house that Solomon had prepared for it. And, by the way, there are people who read into that. Well, the Ark of the Covenant was already in the temple. What is Josiah saying? Some people say, well, he was hiding it, because he knew the Babylonians were coming. And that's where some people think, well, it's hidden in somewhere around Jerusalem.

Most people close to the temple, are -- our rebuilt temple. Motivation. Think it's under the Temple Mount.

But, you know, it disappears from the record, is the point.

And the next time you see anything mentioned. It's in the Book of Revelation, actually.

After all this other stuff is over with.

All the bad stuff.

So, yeah. It is a big mystery.

I will tell you a quick story. Ninety-two.
I and another gentleman, along with an Israeli friend, we went to the office of Rabbi Yehuda Getz, who at that time was over all of the holy places in Jerusalem.

And to make a long story short, Rabbi Getz did not believe that the Ark of the Covenant was in Ethiopia. He did not believe it was there.

He felt very confident, he knew where the Ark of the Covenant was. And he did not tell us. But our Israeli friend, later told us, that in the early '80s, along with a lot of the men who were participants, in the relitigation of Jerusalem. '67. Actually, when these excavations begun, they were looking for the Ark of the Covenant. Because they believed that it was under the temple mount somewhere. I've even heard reports, that it was supposedly -- saw the place where it was kept. Now, I don't know that to be a fact.

So there are people who do believe it still exists. There are people that are in Jerusalem, who would love for that to be revealed. And I would suggest that if that were -- if you think the red of her will cause --

GLENN: Oh, my gosh. Oh, my gosh. Oh, my gosh. I mean, I can't imagine how that could be revealed, and the whole world not taking real significant note.

Whether you believe that the -- what's ever in it. Or that the remnants of the Ten Commandments. Or not.

It doesn't matter.

For the Ark of the Covenant to be revealed and come back.

That would say a lot, about Israel. About Jerusalem. About the times we live in. I mean, pretty much everything. Pretty much everything.

GLENN: Well, it still exists. And this is just my opinion. That's all it is, just an opinion.

I tend to believe that if it does exist, and it's going to be revealed.

Then it probably will coincide with the Messianic age, with the Messiah's return.

And I think that would probably be more likely. But that doesn't mean that there aren't people who would be very, very excited to be -- to have an opportunity. To find it, look for it. And if they could, bring it out.

And that would cause World War III, most likely.

GLENN: It probably would.

It's weird, Bill. When you're over there. You don't understand highway this little patch of land has caused so much turmoil really, in the world.

Why everybody seems to be -- you know, centered on that patch of land. Because it's not very big.

And it's almost like it's a pulse, you can feel it.

That Temple Mount. There's something about that area.

It's God's throne. And you can feel it.

It's amazing. It's amazing.

BILL: Exactly. Exactly. That, what you just said, is prophetic. Prophecy said, he will make Jerusalem burden themselves. And even more -- more so, the Temple Mount. Because that is where God's presence kissed the earth.

And the Ark of the Covenant was basically God's throne on earth.

So, yeah. It's a very contested piece of property, and it will be at the heart of conflict. Yes.

GLENN: Bill Cloud, thank you so much.

If you would like to follow him, you can follow him on his website at BillCloud.org. That's BillCloud.org.

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

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

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

Is there a sinister GOP plan to SELL national parks?

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

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

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

Chris Rufo, I really respect.

I'm totally against selling this land.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No, and it still isn't.

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

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

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

That's not what they mean by affordable housing.

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

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

There's plenty of land all around.

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

Some of it is like the surface of the moon!

But no. No. No.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yada. Yada. Yada.

More about Teddy Roosevelt.

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

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

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

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

Let me give you just my perspective on this.

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

I don't hike myself.

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

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

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

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

But can we just look at the perspective here?

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

How much land do we have?

Well, that's about the size of France.

And Germany. Poland.

And the United Kingdom, combined!

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

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

Okay?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And those policies are real.

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

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

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

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

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

The federal government.

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

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

It's not going to happen.

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

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

Okay.

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

Why is it hard to access that land?

Well, let me give you a story. Yellowstone.

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

But it's the American bison.

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

Did you know that?

Here's almost an endangered species.

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

Ranchers, I would love to raise real American bison.

And I would protect them.

I would love to have them roaming on my land.

But you can't!

You can't.

Real bison, you can't.

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

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

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

We will thin the herd.

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

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

I have pictures of piles of bald eagles.

That they'll never show you.

They'll never show you.

You can't have a bald eagle feather!

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

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

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

And nobody says a thing.

Okay.

But we're talking about lands.

States can't afford to manage it.

Okay. But how can the federal government?

Now, this is really important.

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

Our entitlement programs, all straight infrastructure, crumbling.

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

Because they can always print money.

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

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

Everything is falling apart..

So what's the real plan here?

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

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

But the real goal is 5050.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sorry, under Biden.

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

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

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

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

And all of the banks are like, okay.

Well, you can't pay anymore.

What happens in a default?

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

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

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

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

That is really important!

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

So what is the alternative?

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

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

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Alan Dershowitz, how are you?

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

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

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

It's insane!

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

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

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

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

GLENN: Okay.

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

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

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

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

Some states go the other way.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You leave it to the public.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Experts have become partisans, just like everybody else.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Take guns, for example.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And these are rights that are enshrined.

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

ALAN: Oh, no.

There's a big difference, of course.

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

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

Whether it could be well-regulated by states.

Look, these are interesting debates.

And the Supreme Court, you know, decides these.

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have an article today, with gay stone.

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

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

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

Judges are supposed to judge.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So no.

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

GLENN: Last question.

I am proudly for Israel.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

GLENN: Should we drop a bomb?

ALAN: Yes, we should.

GLENN: Our plane drop the bomb?

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

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

GLENN: What is the preventive state out, Alan?

ALAN: Just now. Just now.

Very well on Amazon.

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

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

GLENN: Okay.

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

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

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

THE GLENN BECK PODCAST

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

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

Watch Glenn's FULL Interview with Shad Sullivan HERE