RADIOMarch 14, 2024

Former Border Patrol Agent Has NEVER SEEN Illegal Immigration This BAD

Randy Clark was a Border Patrol agent for over 32 years, from the Reagan administration to the Trump administration. But he tells Glenn Beck that he has “NEVER” seen anything like the border crisis that President Biden “unleashed.” In fact, he admits that over the past 3 years of the illegal immigration surge, he has had “no advice to give Border Patrol agents I meet… I cannot tell them how to cope with this” because of how unprecedented it has been. Randy also weighs in on something just as concerning: Are we being told the full truth from either the Right OR Left about the border? This is the subject of the newest Blaze Originals documentary, “Texas vs. The Feds: How The Elites Use The Border Crisis Against Us.” Randy dives into one of the questions raised in the documentary: What was discussed at a secret meeting earlier this year between Secretary of State Alejandro Mayorkas and the President of Mexico? And how do the cartels fit into all of this?

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Welcome. I brought Jason Buttrill in. He is the chief researcher for the Glenn Beck Program. And also, the -- the head writer for Glenn TV on Wednesday night specials. Welcome.

JASON: Thanks, Glenn.

GLENN: We sent you down to the border, because there was the truckers, the Take Our Border Back convoy. And everybody was saying, it's Christian nationalism. And it wasn't Christian nationalism. And I knew that. You knew that. Because I knew some of the organizers. And I thought, there's no way, unless it's infiltrated.

So we sent you down with a camera crew. And the story turned out to be nothing. However, you came back a changed man.

JASON: I hate to say that I was completely black-pilled, but yeah.

STU: Yeah, it's a big change.

GLENN: Big change.

STU: He still doesn't have hair.

JASON: How dare you.

GLENN: It's not that -- but you came back and you were like, Glenn, I can't -- I have to show you. I can't even explain what I learned.

JASON: Well, I know that -- we all know that the government and the media all bend the immigration and border issue for their own purposes. They all game it.

It's too politically valuable for them.

So, you know, the media uses it. We saw that with the trucker convoy, like firsthand.

That's the very first thing we saw. But then, you remember that time?

It was kind of awesome to be a Texan at that time.

GLENN: But all of a sudden, Texas stood up.

JASON: We were flying our flags. We took the matter in our own hands, we're finally enforcing the law. It felt so awesome to be a Texan.

And it's incredibly hard to describe, without you, actually, seeing the video.

Without you seeing -- you know, the Shelby Park. How it was kind of taken. It's impossible to explain.

But that right there, is when I was like, oh, my gosh. I feel like we're being lied to, all across the border.

GLENN: Even on our own side.

JASON: That's the worst part.

GLENN: Yeah, I know.

Randy Clark is with us. He's a retired border patrol agent. He also writes for Breitbart.

And he was down on the border. And he's one of the guys that kind of black pilled you a little bit.

JASON: Randy Clark is old-school Border Patrol.

He -- you spend five minutes with him, and you are an expert. He's amazing.

GLENN: Randy, welcome to the Glenn Beck Program.

RANDY: Thank you for having me, Glenn. Jason, good to hear you, brother.

JASON: You too.

GLENN: So, Randy, let's talk about a secret meeting that is in the docket tonight. A secret meeting. I guess it wasn't secret. We just don't what an they did, that happened with Antony Blinken, and the president of Mexico.

RANDY: So we know they sat down together in late December. Right about the time we were seeing, you know, just the hoards of people, coming into Eagle Pass. All of that imagery. And when it gets that bad.

That's when it becomes a big deal. Because that's when you get those folks from the media, that never report on the border.

That's when CNN is obligated to come, and other outlets that just really don't care whether the border is open or not.

They would rather see it open. That's when there's a problem. This was shut down within three days of that meeting, between Biden and everyone talking. And Blinken and Mayorkas sitting down.

Again, late December.

Within a few days, Eagle Pass was down to zero when the congressional visit came with close to 60-some-odd members of the Republican Party, including Speaker of the House.

You couldn't find anybody there. We had a handful of migrants come near the boat ramp, during their press conference. Where normally, by that hour of the day, we would have had 5,000. So this was awfully fast.

And nobody has taken credit for it, except really the state of Texas with some wire.

Because the Biden administration doesn't want to let you know, we could have done this three years ago.

GLENN: This is -- because I know what you're showing tonight.

And it is -- oh. It's -- you -- it's a punch to the gut.

It really is.

Tell me the -- when did Texas put the razor wire up?

Before or after this?

RANDY: So that razor wire has been up for several years now. They augmented it around January 11 when they seized the park. By that time, the park had been clear of most migrants for 11 days.

The problem is, this thing is still moving to the West. In other words, the country still has a problem with illegal immigration and open borders. And fentanyl.

It's -- the government of Mexico, their main objective was to stop those trains. The best system, they call it. It's the best. Those trains are almost void of any migrants, when they were bringing in daily, three to 5,000, into the parts of Texas. Mostly in Eagle Pass, as of late.

GLENN: So the drug cartel had to be involved, because the drug cartel runs everything.

And if they decided to shift, that's either a wild coincidence, after we meet with the president of Mexico.

Or they're involved.

RANDY: So the cartels have not stopped their part.

Where there is value, they are moving that. If you look to Lucedale, Arizona, where you see there are migrants across the globe coming in. That's where the cartel is making the bulk of their money on human smuggling. They have not stopped them.

GLENN: Yeah. But they have stopped or cut way back in Texas. Right?

RANDY: Well, if you see the got away numbers, they're still there. The sheriffs in South Texas. And the Texas Department of Public Safety.

They are still chasing cars in pursuit on the highways.

And that's when -- that's the hand of the cartel. Those are paying customers. We hide them. They're even hiding them from Mexico.

They're trying to get around those checkpoints in Mexico. Mexico is finding them in semi tractor-trailers just like the border patrol finds at their checkpoints. It's now a game of cat and mouse in Mexico with the cartels, like it is in the United States.

So the cartel is still trying to beat this Mexican government initiative, and they're doing it by moving West. Because that was not hindered. But they are moving more of their migrants to the West. And we see those numbers coming up, where Texas is remaining low. There are tens of thousands of soldiers, that Mexico has placed towards this endeavor.

If they just kicked the people off the trains. You can take away about 5,000 per day from the equation. So we're seeing that. We're seeing crossings of five to 6,000 a day, where we were seeing up to ten and 11 and 12 during December, right before the meeting, between Blinken, Mayorkas, and Obrador.

GLENN: I saw that yesterday it was reported that two people -- or a -- two groups of people were taking Ubers across the border. I don't know who would have done that.

But they're -- the cars were shot up. One person was killed. Because it was the cartel. Because they didn't ask permission to come across the border.

Is that universal, across the border?

RANDY: You know, it is universal. And that's really what's at stake, that we can't lose sight of. Is that this cartel.

They will make money doing whatever they can. Whether it's extortion, whether it's robbery, whether it's fentanyl, whether it's migrants.

And that's really why, I think we have to as conservatives, stay true to this matter, and let the public know what they face. Because this is a greater thing going on in the background.

We have a silent selection going on, in Mexico, that's going to happen in June.

The leading candidate is way more liberal than Obrador.

GLENN: Oh, my gosh.

RANDY: We're going to see the same feelings towards the cartel. The hugs, not bullets.

We will see that going on. We will face -- if we do not change in our election.

And we stay the course we're at right now, we will see an open border for years. And those 80,000 fentanyl deaths are going to continue or rise, because nobody will do anything about this cartel.

GLENN: Tell me about -- you know, they're bending over backwards to try to dismiss any crime coming from illegals, that are crossing over.

I mean, I just have to see, you know, some of the more heinous things that are going on right now.

Are coming from -- I mean, we have our own homegrown people. But we don't have to have the crime from people who shouldn't be here in the first place.

And the media doesn't seem to understand that.

And they're trying to make everybody understand, they're just good people coming over. Can you explain the -- the crime.

Is there any correlation, causation of the crime stats going up, beyond just reimagining the police.

RANDY: Well, there sure are. And not to paint migrants with a broad brush.

Because we know most are economic migrants. The problem is in the chaos. Just like when you saw in the Afghanistan withdrawal. In the highest chaos, you just cannot control, who gets on a plane. Who processes the border.

And even -- what -- wee we see now. Even a liberal media is poking fun at this. Almost as if it's funny, that people are getting killed at the hands of either drunk drivers, or strangled to death at a university. They're making light of that.

And what we see on the official side is, well, the only person responsible for that crime is the murder. Well, you hear that, because there was no gun.

If there was a gun. Well, then it would have been the gun.

This administration is not going to take any responsibility for what they have unleashed on America.

And I say unleashed, because I was in the Border Patrol, when Ronald Reagan was president.

And I left at the end of the Trump administration, in August of 2020.

Right at September.

This has never existed. What I have seen the last three years, I have no advice to give Border Patrol agents, I meet when I'm out on the job.

You know, they're just getting started, because I don't have experience. I spent 32 and a half years on the border patrol, I cannot tell them how to cope with this. Because we never saw it before.

I don't want folks to lose sight of this, that this is extremely dangerous. And you see the Democrat mayors, tapping out for a reason.

We have neglected every major immigration law or protection that we have in there. Such as public charge. Or public health issues. We have forgotten about everything.

And the crime, we have forgotten about as well.

Some of the gangs coming in from Venezuela.
They are masters at moving into other countries. They that did that when they left Venezuela.

They did that in Columbia. They did that in Peru. They know how to take over, the organized crime in that country.

And they do it with extreme violence. And I think we are going to see that, in some of our bigger sanctuary cities, coming up. These poor law enforcement that are already defunded in those areas, are not going to be able to cope with it.

GLENN: Yeah, America has never seen anything like Haiti before, and we are on that track.

Randy, thank you so much. I appreciate it. Thank you for all your help on the docket.

And informing us. And helping us to figure out what's really going on.

Thanks for everything that you do. And have done.

Randy Clark. You bet. Buh-bye.

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