RADIO

Did Biden Have a Senior Moment In Front of G7 World Leaders?

President Biden's appearance at the G7 summit is turning heads. One video that went viral on social media shows a dazed-looking Biden moving incredibly slowly while watching parachuters, and the Prime Minister of Italy even had to help him. Glenn reviews this senior moment, as well as some of the other ones Biden has had just in the past week! Plus, Glenn reviews Biden's latest announcements about sending even more taxpayer dollars to Ukraine.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Good thing the G7 you summit where all of the big leaders get together and, you know, have a powwow and talk about, what we're going to do to cause some more war and higher inflation!

They got together, and they were watching a -- just a fantastic skydiving event. That was done for -- for them. Now, remember, I just -- just remember, these are the ones that are always saying, global warming! Global warming!

So not only did they fly over in their own planes, to get together. But then, they sent an airplane up with people in it, to jump out, for their entertainment.

So I'm taking them seriously. But they're all standing there on an open field, watching these guys come down, except for -- except for Joe Biden.

He watches for a while. And then he decides, eh. Squirrel.

And he starts to meander and walk away from. And it's -- it's incredible footage to watch.

Because you can see none of the prime ministers or presidents, know what to do. As he just wanders off. He's facing the wrong direction.

And you see Prime Minister Maloney from Italy, she's the only one that gracefully knows how to get him out. She kind of backs out. And then grabs him. Like over here. We have cookies.

Who wants a cookie?

Look at cookies. Say cookie.

It is -- it is horrifying how bad he is.

And then he puts his glasses on, at twice the speed that it takes for him to sit down at ceremonies.

I don't know if you remember that footage, from earlier this week. Last weekend, where he was trying to sit down. Looked like he crapped his pants. He didn't crap his pants.

He was just deciding, should I sit down?

Or not? Maybe I should stand. Okay?

That's what was going true his head. He must know whether he was -- he started to sit town. Then he was like, oh, nobody else is.

You just stand up, man. You just stand back up. It's no big deal. We've all done it.

But he just froze. Like, I'm thinking.

When he's putting his sunglasses on, he's like, I have to lift my arm.

The pressure on my gun glasses enough, to keep them held up, so I can put them on now on my face over my ears. Done.

What do they -- honestly, what do they Jack him up with?

Because they've got to Jack him up with something.

Because there's no way. That's not the guy who speaks to us in like major interviews.

Or when he believes in to address empress, for the State of the Union. He's like, hey, man.

I have to tell you, everything is going great. I mean, save our economy is great. I don't know what they're putting him on, but that ain't Joe Biden. Yeah, shocking. Shocking.

JASON: The difference is shocking. In the interviews, he's with it. But when he gets on a stage. Maybe he's just allergic to stages. I don't really know what it is.

GLENN: Or in this case, it's a field.

JASON: Field. Yeah. It's that -- remember that, when he was just -- when he got stuck in that one facial expression!

When he was -- what was that event at the White House or whatever? For Juneteenth. It was stuck. It was like everything just stopped.

GLENN: Yeah. Can you play that?

Do we have that video from earlier this week? I'm not sure we still have that.

But that video from him from the Juneteenth celebration, that happened actually the last weekend. The weekend before was, I'm going to sit -- so it's once a week, we're getting these major things.

And he was standing at Juneteenth. And everybody was moving with the music and everything else.

That he had joker smile on him.

Go ahead and roll that, will you?

He had this joker smile on his face. No. That's not it.
(music)

That's another great one too. He has this joker smile on him, that doesn't move.

He's like, I -- I am happy to be here. And everybody is happy. Jill told me to keep smiling. So I'm smiling. I'm smiling.

That's all I'm doing. Smile. Smile. Smile. She didn't tell me to move.

And smile. I'm just smiling. And not moving.

JASON: That's just creepy.

GLENN: It is creepy. He is -- you know who looks more LifeLock?

The audio-animatronic Joe Biden. It will be one in Disney, that's like, man, they nailed him! They didn't get better. He just always looks like he's an audio-animatronic.

JASON: Yeah. I don't want to guess what might be wrong with him.

But my father had lupus. And he would have like little micro strokes.

And it just, all of a sudden, he would just check out. He would kind of stop and kind of gaze. And what he was doing, he was having micro strokes. And that is eerily similar from what I saw from him.

GLENN: Well, this is -- one of my daughters, you know, Mary, she has not significant strokes.

Or, significant seizures.

And this -- this really cutting edge procedure, that I wouldn't have done.

She chose to do it.

I would have been too afraid.

Because they said to her. You may wake up. And you may not recognize anybody.

You may not be able to speak. Or know people's names.

I mean, we don't know what we're doing here.

But we think we know what we're doing. But we don't. And brave girl, she was like, do it!

I don't want to live like this anymore.

Just do it.

So they did. And she was seizure free, for about two years.

And now they've come back. Pretty hard.

And hers are really getting grand mal-ish.

My other daughter has a seizure, where she is like Joe Biden, but just a very short period of time.

Where she's like, and you're like, hello!

Hello.

What?

And we didn't for a long time. Didn't know they were seizures. Probably like your dad. We didn't know.

Just thought he drifted for a minute.

And, yeah, but that's not.

I think he's just gone. I think he's just gone. Here's Biden yesterday, promising Ukraine, a lot more money! Great.

BIDEN: By the way, the idea that we had to wait until we passed the legislation overall, maybe held up by a small majority of our Republican colleagues, is just terrible. And there's a lot more money --

GLENN: Can you stop? Can you stop?

Play that again. I want you to listen to what the president of the United States just said. Listen again.

BIDEN: By the way, the idea that we had to wait until we passed the legislation overall, held up by a small majority of our Republican colleagues.

GLENN: Stop!

The idea that we had to wait, for Congress to pass this, before we could do it, is just horrible.

That's the constitutional process, dude!

He's complaining that you have to wait before you spend money on something that's controversial!

What is that?

That's the cry of a dictator. Now, you can say, because of our system, we had to wait.

And, you know, it's just the way -- you know, a republic, and a democracy, it's not pretty all the time. As Churchill said. It's the worst, until you compare it to everything else.

And then you realize, it's the best. It's the best of the worst.

You know, sorry we had to delay on that. But we have certain things that we have to do.

But the money is there now.

No! He's saying the very idea that we had to wait. Do you know that famous speech from FDR?

A date that will live in infamy?

Do you know what that speech was? That speech was for the president to make that case in front of Congress, to go to war!

There was never a clearer at least, you know, in the last 100 years. There's no clearer declaration of war, than bombing Pearl Harbor. Right?

Bombing all of our ships.

Today, we would have just launched!

The president back then. This is how far we've drifted.

The president back then, even after Pearl Harbor, went the very next day to Congress.

And gave that speech. And then they voted. The very idea that we have to vote on things in Congress. I've done everything I can to make Congress and the Constitution just, you know, a rubber stamp.

But I'm not there yet. So let me promise you, that there's a lot more money coming. Oh, my gosh.

JASON: That's an interesting point you make.

I caught him do this in the past. These very fundamental beliefs in the past. They clearly just do not believe in.

Like, every time he threatens us with the F-15 remark that he said about 60,000 times. I never really got annoyed that it was a threat.

I never really took it that way. What really annoyed me, was he is making fun of the fundamental, you know, right of self-defense, that we have in this country.

The fundamental right, that if there ever becomes a tyrant, you have the tools to stand up and push back, and say no.

You have that right to put -- go ahead.

GLENN: You not only have the right, as it says in the Declaration of Independence. You have the duty, to overthrow the shackles of a tyrant.

JASON: Yes.

GLENN: And you're right. But, Jason, as somebody who was in Afghanistan, right after 9/11, I don't know.

Those F-15s. Everything that we -- everything that we threw at them. They're still in charge of Afghanistan, aren't they?


JASON: Yeah. I don't think F-15s help them out too much.

Neither do the Northern Vietnamese.

History is full of insurgencies that have been successful. You know, on this Ukraine funding thing, we've done multiple different shows on some of this stuff.

And what will shock you. If you just kind of look and try to trace some of these funds.

Whether they're coming from Congress, or some other agency within this government.

It is everywhere!

Like, just look at the news. You'll look, it's like, oh, Secretary Blinken was in Ukraine yesterday.

He promised 200 million. Yeah. Where did that come from?

Congress did not approve that.

GLENN: That's the -- that's the chevron case. That's the chevron case.

They can't do that! Only Congress has the purse strings. Only Congress can issue more spending. It must start in Congress.

We've completely disregarded the Constitution.

It's not only hanging from a thread.

I think the thread is so frayed that it's broken. And we're not even using it at all. Or we're the closing that we've ever been to absolutely destroying everything that everybody worked and died. Died for.

Anyway, so he's promising more money. A

But don't worry the experts get it.

Here is Janet Yellen, telling us that, you know, you just don't get it. You don't understand. We're smarter than you. Cut nine.

VOICE: All Americans, both those who are well-off.

And those at the bottom. Of the income distribution. They're better off. Their wages have risen more than prices.

GLENN: Okay. All right. Good is bad. Bad is good.

Up is down, down is up.

And prices are down. And your wages are up. So everybody knows this.

America, can you afford to be led by these people, another four years?

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

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