RADIOMay 19, 2025

Ben & Jerry’s Ben Busted Protesting RFK Jr.

“Ben & Jerry’s” co-founder Ben Cohen was recently arrested while protesting Health & Human Services Secretary RFK Jr. during a congressional hearing. Oh the irony that the ice cream man is heckling the guy who’s trying to make America healthy! But even more ironic is he’s heckling someone who probably AGREES with him on many things! Glenn and Stu discuss why leftists have turned on fellow liberals like RFJ Jr. who have joined the Trump administration and whether conservatives should also keep an eye out.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: So Ben Cohen. Do you know who Ben Cohen is from Ben & Jerry's?

STU: Oh, yeah.

GLENN: Okay. He was removed yesterday from the hearing with Robert F. Kennedy about 15 minutes into the hearing.

You have it? Go ahead. Go ahead. There's that. The -- love that he's the face of ice cream. There he is.

VOICE: Members of the audience.

GLENN: And he is eventually removed. There he is. He's saying, Congress! Congress pays for bombs! Congress pays for bombs! They kill people.

VOICE: Members of the audience! Reminded, disruptions will not be permitted while the committee conducts its business. County police are asked to remove the individuals from the hearing room.

GLENN: That's -- I mean, let me have some ice cream right now. Let me get some of that. You know --

STU: So bizarre.

GLENN: So bizarre.

STU: And he's protesting RFK Jr. Who would be completely aligned with him, I think on this issue.

GLENN: Yes. On that issue. On a lot of issues. You know what, they just took some things out, because RFK is forcing them to take it out of their ice cream.

Ben & Jerry's stuff in their ice cream, that's not healthy for you according to RFK. That's -- I mean, that's amazing.

STU: Ice cream, typically not seen as a healthy food.

GLENN: No. No. No.

STU: Generally speaking.

GLENN: But their rocky road Rockefeller. With just a little bit of petroleum in it. Might have been a little bit too much. Might have been too much.

STU: You know, then you can choose not to eat it.

That's a wonderful thing you can do.

It's just strange the alignments here.

GLENN: I know.

STU: Did I -- this may be a fever dream, honestly, at this point.

I'm out on a limb with this.

But did Ben and Jerry go on with Tucker recently?

Is this a thing that occurred? People are saying yes. It's amazing the conversations that are happening on there right now.

I mean, like, look, it's good that you should be able to talk to people.

I'm sure Tucker does not agree with most of what Ben believes of Ben & Jerry's.

GLENN: Was Ben and Jerry on?

STU: I think it was only Ben.

GLENN: That's like having the cat from Tom and Jerry.

I don't know which one was the cat. Which one was the mouse?

STU: I think Tom was the cat, and Jerry was the mouse. So you want to have both the cat and mouse at the same time?

GLENN: Yeah, they're a team really.

STU: We'll get with their movie department.

GLENN: All right. Thank you. Here's a text you might get from your current wireless provider, if they knew more about you, and they were being honest.

Hey. It's not you, it's me.

Actually, it is you. You believe in freedom.

You think the Constitution is like, I don't know.

Good. I think it's a little problematic.

I need customers who share my values. You know, who hate cops and stuff like that. And want to kill babies. Anyway, I think maybe we should break up. That's what your cell phone company. That's what they would write to you.

They would break up.

Okay. Instead of dumping you. You should be dumping them. It's them, not you.

Okay? Do you want your money to go to causes like Planned Parenthood?

Because if you're with Verizon, they give that.

Patriot Mobile is the only cell phone company that actually believes in what you believe. Faith, family, freedom.

They support the right causes. They use the same towers, and they will make it easy to switch. In fact, they're the only company that will give you -- the big guys can't do this. They'll give you access to both, you know, companies. So if you're like, no. I get better service with this company here. And better service. They will give you -- service with both. It's PatriotMobile.com/Beck. PatriotMobile.com/Beck. 972PATRIOT. Get a first month for free

STU: Go to GlennBeck.com. Get the free email news letter. All the stories we talk about on a daily basis. GlennBeck.com.
(OUT AT 10:29 AM)

GLENN: Right now, SCOTUS is listening to arguments on birthright citizenship. The focus really is on the judge's power to block policies nationwide. That's got to stop. That just has to stop. But we'll see what the Supreme Court has to say.

STU: That's really the focus too. It's really not about birthright citizenship. From what I'm understanding. It's more about injunctions.

GLENN: Yeah. And it will be very narrow, on the injunctions, I think.

STU: Really?

GLENN: Yeah. So we'll see. We'll see.

So welcome to the program. We're glad you're here. You know who is not here? Is Ben and Jerry.

STU: He's here in my heart. By that way, I mean the calcium buildup from all the heart disease I've seen from the company, over the years. Yeah. He's not here.

He was at that big hearing.

It's difficult to understand where anyone is anymore.

I feel like, this was easier back in the day.

Like, you can kind of -- heard Ben and Jerry, you knew, left. It was easy, right?

GLENN: Right. Right.

STU: Now --

GLENN: I miss the days when we could just put labels on people. It was easy.

STU: It was easy. It made things a little easier to keep track of.

You know, like some people would label anti-Semite, for example, on Ben and Jerry.

Over the years. That was a label that I thought was interesting.

You know, but it's -- he's now opposing RFK who, I mean --

GLENN: I think it's probably on Ben & Jerry's side on many things.

STU: On almost everything.

Right? There is some things RFK has obviously changed now, when it comes to the woke stuff.

Some of the censorship stuff.

Although, I think -- it could be wrong on this.

Ben might be one of those old school socialist types. That might even agree with us on some of the censorship stuff.

Maybe. Because part of the socialist movement in the United States, was kind of built on --

GLENN: Was.

STU: Right. Was built on the operation to the McCarthyism.

And so there was -- there's some ideological.

GLENN: Right. They were for that, when they were the ones being shut up.

Now that they're not the ones being told to shut up.

They are like, we have every right to tell you to shut up. Okay.

STU: Yeah. Let me ask you this though. Because he's also been embraced by some parts of the right.

And -- and, you know, like Tucker did an interview with him. That's not an embrace. You can talk to whoever you want to talk to. Right? There's nothing wrong with that. We've talked to people on the far, far left. Even much farther left, crazier than even Ben or Jerry over the years. I -- no problem with that.

As a journalist, you should do that. You know, Tucker talked to Vladimir Putin, right? So did Megan Kelly.

GLENN: Yeah, I would talk to America's biggest enemies.

STU: Yeah. How else do you know what held them up? You would ask tough questions. I'm sure Tucker did in the interview. But we are -- I've noticed this thing that we're doing.

And I'm a little concerned. Let me see if I can articulate this.

GLENN: Are you?

STU: Us on the right, the conservative side of the spectrum, find someone who has some crossover with us.

In some way. But is really a figure of the left. Okay?

And we kind of give -- saying, hey, come on over. We have got this thing. It's wonderful!

And then they sort of become part of the movement, and that's totally fine. Like, let me give you an example. Tulsi Gabbard.

I really like Tulsi Gabbard.

She's been on the show a bunch of times. She's in the administration right now. She's great. so this is not a criticism.

I'm glad Tulsi Gabbard has had this awakening over the years. I'm excited about that. But so she comes over. She's -- you know, she supported Bernie Sanders. Ran the Sander's campaign in Hawaii back in the day. Not that long ago.

But she's had a transition. She's come over, and obviously, in the Trump administration right now.

And so we look at that. And we say, hey. That's great. We brought someone from the left, over to our side.

And that's great, if that's what you're doing. If you're convincing someone on the left, to convert their ideas into something closer to your ideas.

That's a positive change. You're widening the tent in a way that we can all support.

But really, what Tulsi is doing, in the government right now, is she's being consistent with her old left-wing views on things like, you know, stopping wars and not -- you know, and being tough on intelligence issues in the government.

GLENN: Yeah. Because we woke up on that.

STU: Well, because we've changed.

GLENN: Right.

STU: And that's what I'm getting to here. What seems to be happening, is we're embracing things on the left. And it's not us changing their views into ours. It's us changing our views into theirs. And then embracing some of those people.

That's not necessarily bad if we were wrong the whole time. Right?

GLENN: Yeah, I don't think we were on the endless wars.

STU: Yeah. I mean, some of that I agree with. Right?

The phrasing of it, and maybe the -- the scope of it, maybe I'm not fully there. But generally speaking, I think, you know, we've definitely overstepped our bounds at times.

GLENN: A lot of times.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: I don't think that's improper to say.

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: But, again, I look at the way that Trump handles it. And it's different than what Tulsi's vision of this is.

GLENN: Oh, no.

STU: Trump is tough on Iran.

GLENN: I think Trump is Ronald Reagan. I'll pound you into the sand. I will turn your sand into glass. Don't screw with us. But then he's like, we're buddies right now. So you don't want to be buddies? We'll be buddies.

STU: For example, this: His Syria move, I think, is fascinating. And I think -- I think the right move. I'm not 100 percent sure.

GLENN: Me too. I'm not 100 percent on anything.

STU: But like, I think it's worth taking a stab on this.

It's a new regime. The guy used to be literally in al-Qaeda. Okay?

GLENN: I know.

STU: However, maybe he's changed.

I think the chances of it are low. But why not pull that lottery ticket?

Because the downside is what we already had.

So give a shot. Give the guy a handshake. Say, hey, we will drop these sanctions. We're going to give you a chance to not turn yourself into the old regime.

GLENN: I think that's --

STU: I think that's the right approach.

GLENN: Nobody is ever turned by lectures.

STU: Yeah. Or like opponent's lectures in particular.

GLENN: Right. You turn people through love and understanding. And giving them the benefit of the doubt.

Until they prove you wrong.

STU: It's a great point.

And I think it ties back to my previous. The way we started this conversation.

Which is, a lot of people in our movement, are being won over to previous left-wing positions by new friends. And that is not bad, in and of itself.

But we've done it a lot lately.

And I'm concerned.

GLENN: So because I changed. Not because of Tulsi.

STU: No. But the movement has changed.

GLENN: The reason I liked Tulsi at first. Was I like the fact, that she was willing to stand up to her own machine. And say, no. You guys are wrong.

You guys are going down this fascistic route.

And I won't go there with you. You are changing all the rules.

You are not who you said you were.

That's why I originally liked her. Because she would take on her own people.

And that takes courage. So it shows you something about her character. Then when you get to know her, you realize, oh, we might disagree on taxes and everything else. But she loves the country. She loves and reveres the Constitution of the United States.

STU: Yep.

GLENN: If I could get you on the Bill of Rights, we don't have any differences too big to not be able to bridge.

STU: And, again, I don't think Tulsi is a problem.

GLENN: No. I don't.

STU: That's not what I'm saying.

But, you know, you have -- let's -- Tulsi is in DNI. You have RFK Jr. HHS. It's a big one. You know, you look at the way RFK approaches -- I mean, he -- I mean, he is awfully close to someone who -- like a Michael Bloomberg on public health issues.

This is something we -- now, he was kind of a Republican in New York at one point.

Obviously, it was something that I know we oppose. The audience loudly opposes, when he was trying to control what you eat. I think there's some differences.

I'm not saying there aren't any.

But, you know, going after food companies. And changing the way -- that's a change for -- if that's what the right is. That is a change for the right.

We were always in favor of people making their own choices. And having companies being able to produce the products within some guidelines.

GLENN: Yeah. As long as they're not killing people.

STU: Right. There are guidelines. There are guardrails, of course, to all of this.

But generally speaking, ours were wide. The left's were small. And now we've taken, the guy who was the voice of the left's view on those. RFK Jr. and put him in charge of the right's view of it.

Is that a good thing?

Maybe it's great. Maybe he's been completely right this whole time, and we should have been approaching things that way.

GLENN: I think if our society was not getting sicker and sicker and sicker. Then --

STU: There's reasons for all of this stuff.

GLENN: Right.

STU: But we should notice those things.

You know, he's a really -- I think big example of that. Because that is -- it's a massive change to the way that we've -- we've done these things.

Another one is trade. Peter Navarro ran as a Democrat over and over and over and over again.

On these trade whys.

Now, Donald Trump has been consists with these ideas since the day he was in the public eye.

GLENN: There's nobody who has been more outspoken on antitrade, up until recently, than me. And you.

You're still outspoken on it.

I think -- I think we have to give it a shot.

Because we're behind the eight ball here.

GLENN: Yeah. I don't like the policy.

I don't agree.

But again. It's separate from whether each individual one of these is right.

There's a lot of these.

And over time, I think, you can knowledge.

It will add up to a completely different formula.

It might be the right thing for us to do.

But we should notice each one of these changes, I think.

GLENN: And I think you're right on that.

But isn't this the same as -- I mean, you're not the same guy I met 30 years ago.

STU: Totally, we all change.

GLENN: We all change. And that's good. And we should notice when we change. Because we learn from. Wait. Why did I just change?

Did I change for the right reasons? Did something happen to me?

Is somebody around me, changing this? You do -- we do have to pay attention to the change.

But I think change is good.

STU: It can be.

You know --

GLENN: If it's -- if it's well thought out.

If it is still built on principles.

And evolving understanding. Not of truth.

But how to get to the truth. Like, I -- for instance, the foreign war thing.

I just know, right now. What we've been doing is not working. It's not going to make the world safer. Ever. Ever. Ever.

It's not.

STU: Sometimes, it has. Obviously, in previous wars. But, yes. I --

GLENN: The meddling of everybody.

STU: You can't control everybody.

GLENN: It just won't work.

And it's making things worse.

Now, pulling all the way back, and saying, you know what, we don't -- you know, we don't want to be involved in the rest of the world.

That doesn't sound good to me.

STU: Yeah. That's what Trump is doing.

GLENN: Right. But it might be the right thing.

I just know -- I know for sure, what we had been doing, doesn't work.

And I really believed in what we were doing.

Well, I believed in what I thought we were doing.

You know what I mean?

STU: For sure.

GLENN: And so we have to make changes. And changes in almost everything.

And as long as it's logical.

As long as you have really thought things out. As long as you're not just conforming.

You know, the really scary thing is when people begin to conform, for any other reason, other than logic.

I've reasoned this out. I've asked critical questions.

And I am sorry, I would love more information that might change me out of this position.

But this is where I find myself at.

And even if I'm uncomfortable, I have to stand here. Because this is my current understanding of what's best.

You know, and as long as you keep an open mind. And you're constantly seeking to have a better understanding, of deeper truths.

Then I think -- I think you're fine.

But, you know, one of the things we're going to face, especially with AI.

All of a sudden, we're going to conform.

Because Google would give you page after page after page after page of different information.

ChatGPT gives you one answer. And you just assume it's right.

They don't give you anything --

STU: That's got to be a fascinating development in our society.

GLENN: And it's already there.

STU: Oh, it totally is.

GLENN: You Googled, and you had to look at different things and everything else.

This is one answer. And I know it's right, because it came from AI. Very dangerous.

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