RADIOFebruary 24, 2023

Bunker EXPERT: Why to prepare NOW for a future CATASTROPHE

When compared to other Western nations, the U.S. ranks at the bottom of the barrel for bunker and nuclear fallout shelter readiness, says geographer Dr. Bradley Garrett. Garrett, author of ‘Bunker: Building For The End Times,’ tells Glenn that in the United States, politicians, CEOs, and others in positions of power are likely the only ones with a secured spot in the few bunkers available. But that doesn’t mean individual Americans shouldn’t also take steps to prepare for possible, future catastrophes. Unfortunately, he says, there are some major events — like an EMP — that are incredibly difficult to be ready for. But there are still some steps you can take NOW to be as prepared as possible...

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Brad Garrett is joining us. Hi, Brad, how are you, sir?

BRAD: Good morning, Glenn, I'm doing great. How are you?

GLENN: I'm good.

I'm shocked at the number that there's only 3.7 million Americans that would consider themselves preppers.

I would have thought that was at least 5 percent, 10 percent.

BRAD: You know, I think that number is a bit misleading. Because a lot of people don't want to identify themselves as preppers. So I think that's a problem with polling.

GLENN: Right.

BRAD: Because if you -- if you ask people, if you switch that question around, and you say, you know, can you survive for 30 days on your own? Like imagine there's no government infrastructure, you know, water is down. Power is down. There's no grocery stores. If you ask people the question that way. Then about 11.7 million people, that they can survive for 30 days.

So I think it's a problem of labeling. Just like in the past, people didn't want to be called survivalists. People also don't want to be called preppers. It has a negative connotation for some reason.

GLENN: Negative. You know, it used to be called self-reliance. Are you self-reliant?

Yeah.

BRAD: Yeah. Of course. 150 years ago, everyone was self-reliant. We've become increasingly dependent, on the state. And less dependent on our neighbors, which I think is the bigger problem.

GLENN: You know, I -- because I consider myself. Actually, I go back and forth. I consider myself a prepper. Because I'm more prepared than most of my friends. However, I just know that there's something like, oh, crap. I forgot batteries.

There will be something that it all falls apart, you know what I mean?

BRAD: Absolutely. There's always something. This is why, I spent a lot of time in Salt Lake City, when I was writing my book Bunker.

And the church of Ladder Day Saints up there. They're incredible preppers, and they run through scenarios all the time.

So they will -- you know, they'll practice an emergency. They'll work through their food stores.

They've practiced calling everyone on their phone chain, making sure the neighbors are available. That's what we should all be doing. You know, if you do a dry run, then you realize what you're lacking.

GLENN: Yeah. Were you allowed in the tunnels underneath Salt Lake?

BRAD: No. I haven't tried.

GLENN: Oh, you should have called me.

I'm in. It's -- it's incredible.

BRAD: No. Don't feel bad.

GLENN: Yeah. It's absolutely incredible.

The -- they have enough food storage and everything else, for the entire city. In case there's a problem.

It's really incredible. Really incredible.

BRAD: That's fantastic.

I have to say, it was the easiest way of writing my book. A lot of preppers, particularly preppers that are building high level luxury private bunkers, did not want people to necessarily know where they were.

GLENN: Sure. Right.

BRAD: Or what was inside them. But when I showed up in Salt Lake City. They were open arms for the most part. Just let me into all their facilities.

I saw the canning facilities, where they fill those number ten cans, with pasta and oatmeal and everything else.

It was a quite a thing. But, yeah. I didn't make it to the tunnel.

GLENN: Tell me, since we have had this nuclear warning, it's my understanding, that there are countries.

Russia is one of them.

I think Switzerland is one. I think the United Kingdom is one.

Where they're going back and looking at their old Cold War bunkers. And in Switzerland, I believe they're being mandated by government.

You have to go update the food and water in them. Is that true?

BRAD: That is true. And it's kind of ironic, that the bunkers that were built by the Soviet Union in Ukraine. Have been sheltering people and saving probably tens of thousands of lives, at this point.

But that has encouraged the rest of Europe, to sort of reassess their position in terms of bunkers. Switzerland is the most protected country on earth.

Aside of maybe North Korea. We have no idea what's going on.

GLENN: Right.

BRAD: So there is space for 102 percent, of the population.

Which is -- which is kind of astounding. You know, they've actually got 300,000 private bunkers, inside Switzerland.

And then 5,000 public shelters. And most of those are not just fallout shelters, but blast shelters. So those are nuclear biological, and chemical shelters. That the population can take. Can take shelter in.

And, you know, there's actually enough space, that if someone was visiting. You know, the tourist could end up in those bunkers as well.

GLENN: That is crazy.

So where are we on the scale of these western nations and nations that would be affected by this nuclear threat?

Where are we in taking it seriously, and as a government, and preparing people for it?

BRAD: Absolutely terrible. I mean, the US and UK are probably at the bottom of the list. In terms of preparations. And that goes back in the United States, to the Cold War. So there was a -- a team of nuclear strategists, that included Herman Kahn.

GLENN: Yeah.

BRAD: That thought about what it would take to -- he wrote this amazing book on thermal nuclear war.

GLENN: Thermal nuclear war. I have a copy of it. It's great.

BRAD: Absolutely incredible.

GLENN: Yeah, it's nuts.

BRAD: He ran these scenarios. About what it would take to invocate the US population into bunkers, if they were to be an all-out nuclear exchange. And the cost of construction of those bunkers, essentially exceeded GDP as a country for a year.

Yeah, so that's why the Kennedy administration. I think it was in '63, Kennedy made the speech, where he basically said, you know, it -- it's the responsibility of -- of each person. Each family. Each community, to take preparation upon yourselves.

And that's the path that we've been going down, since then.

And what -- I think what frustrates a lot of Americans, is that we now know, that as that speech was being made. The government was hard at work, constructing bunkers for themselves, for their families, for their aides. So, you know, we have a model in the United States, also in the UK, where if you're a politician, if you're a CEO, if you're, you know, someone with influence and power, you're probably going to get space in a bunker. But everyone else is left out to dry.

And the -- so that has triggered in the United States, this -- this incredible movement in the last ten years or so, of private citizens building their own bunkers.

And some of these even rival, the government bunkers that were build during the Cold War.

GLENN: So why did you write this book?

Are you -- I mean, are you feeling we're going need to bunkers? Or what -- what was your motivation here?

BRAD: The bunker is really a metaphor. For thinking about our deteriorating geopolitical situation.

Thinking about our deteriorating, just social situation, within the country.

GLENN: Right.

BRAD: I -- when I -- when I began writing the book, I was interested -- I was interested in the topic from a sociological perspective. I wanted to know who the private players were that were building these bunkers.

What they were worried about. And whether there's any credence to it. And I have -- since I wrote the book, purchased the cabin in the woods.

And a five acre ranch. I have two different locations, that were connected by a four-we'll drive dirt track. So I can move between them, without going on major roads.

I -- most of the people that I spoke to, who were serious about their preparations told me, that the concerns they had weren't just speculative. Right?

That they felt we were on the precipice of something happening. And keep in mind, I started writing this book in 2017. I finished it in 2021.

So I had a lot of interviews with people, telling me that a pandemic was inevitable. That we were overdue for one.

That they happened with regularity, every hundred years or so.

And then it happened, and so that made me go back and reassess all the other things, that people were telling me, that seemed slightly conspiratorial. Or like, like some kind of magical thinking.

And then when I went and reassessed those claims, they seemed to hold a lot more weight, than I expected them to.

GLENN: Yeah. And so you became -- you became one of us. Anyway.

BRAD: I did.

GLENN: Sorry about that, Brad.

BRAD: But I think to your point, you know, we're just going back to an earlier time.

GLENN: Yes.

BRAD: Or it's taking on a different kind of mindset.

Where you can't just go on Amazon and click a button, or get the thing you need tomorrow.

You need to have it now, because you might not be able to get it when things go wrong. But I think it's just kind of the changing up of mindset, a little bit, to think about what our position might be in the future. And it might be a little more precarious.

GLENN: We're talking to Dr. Brad Garrett. He wrote the book Bunker: Building for the End Times. You can follow him at his website. BradleyGarrett.com.

Back with more in just a minute. First, about 3,000 children will die at the hands of an abortion today in the United States.

That is an outrageous number. Our nation has dipped so far over the cliff, that wholesale murder is back page news now. Canada is just -- I mean, Canada is doing euthanasia now, for -- for depression.

What!

150 of these babies will be spared today, because of the work that you have done, with the ministry of Preborn. They provide free ultrasounds to moms considering abortion.

They don't stop there. They also provide love, support, counseling, diapers, books.

Counseling, all kinds of stuff, for like two years. After the baby is born.

Free of charge. If you donate today, maybe that number will be 151 babies saved today.

Please, consider this. It's preborn.com/Beck. Preborn.com/Beck.

Key word is baby, if you just dial #250. Say the key word baby.

#250.

Sponsored by Preborn. Ten-second station ID.
(music)

GLENN: I remember I graduated high school in 1982.

And my -- my rights and responsibilities project, was -- was a -- an essay on the preparedness of our school. And I went into our fallout shelter. And it was a joke.

Of, I mean, the -- I remember the air was not being filtered. The air was from just a shaft, that went right directly outside.

Now, I can't even imagine, you know, do fallout shelters even exist anymore?

BRAD: Well, they -- they do. Most of them are in a state of despair. A lot of them have been turned into -- you know, they've just been adapted for different purposes.

There was a national fallout shelter survey, that took place, in the late 1960s. Early '70s. Where we identified parking garages. Basement. You know, spaces that can be used essentially as a fallout shelter.

So imagine, you know, you're 100 miles from a nuclear blast. You would get into this parking garage. And wait it out.

But most of those spaces, as you say. Didn't have any sort of filtration.

So, you know, you might increase people's possibility of survive, but you're not assuring anyone is going to survey really.

Now, if you try to look for those fallout shelters. They're hard to find.

Of course, the government has continued, you know, the theme of protecting themselves.

So they have space. That they can about it to. There's a ring of about 100 bunkers in about Washington, DC. That the government officials can be easily whisked away to.

But, of course, they're stockpiled with food. And they have EMP, like the communication systems. They -- you know, they -- they're blast shelters. So they can take a direct hit.

You know, you can -- so we've assured the continuity of government.

GLENN: But that's about it. Cockroaches and politicians will survive.

BRAD: Of course, they will, yeah. But the government without its people, doesn't mean much.

GLENN: No. It doesn't.

BRAD: Yeah. It's an incredible thing to imagine. During the Cold War.

Every city in the United States, with over half a million people in it. Had a nuclear warhead aimed at it, ready to fire.

It literally took someone to push that button. And that city would be obliterated.

And it feels like, you know, those nuclear tensions are obviously ramping up again. We might end up back in that situation. Where we're thinking seriously, what it would mean to lose DC. Los Angeles, Boston. You know, what would we do?

And the answer is, the government has a plan. But we don't, for the most part.

GLENN: So where do you even start on a plan?

I mean, people will say, I have food and water.

But if you had something. And it doesn't even have to be a nuclear explosion.

You have something where everything is broken down.

You have 72 hours to be away from people.
Otherwise, after 72 hours. If no help comes, the thing just goes into chaos. And if you're known as the person with the food and everything else, I hope you have strong metal doors.

BRAD: Right. Yeah. There's a huge debate in the prepper community, about bugging out, versus bugging in.

And it's kind of a rural versus urban debate. Because if you're in an urban area, you probably want to get out of there. You know, as you said, the preppers have a saying, 72 hours to animal.

It takes about three days, before people really start falling apart.

People will actually -- you know, social logical studies have shown, that in a disaster, people -- their first reaction is to help others.

And that will carry on for a couple of days, until the people who are providing assistance, start suffering.

And then things start collapsing.

GLENN: So is it that, or is it that it's 72 hours, when you know help isn't coming?

Then you start to have the bad guys go, we can take it all.

We -- I mean, nobody is coming.

BRAD: I think it's more of a sense of abandonment.

Once people realize help isn't coming, then you start to turn to yourself and your family, rather than providing assistance to others.

So, yeah. You know, what can you do?

Well, if we're talking about existential threats. Nuclear war.

Unaligned artificial intelligence.

Destroying us.

You know, an EMP that wipes out all of the electronics in the country, instantaneously. This isn't really stuff you can prepare for, very well.

GLENN: Right. Right.

BRAD: But what you can prepare for is kind of minor turbulence, I call it.

GLENN: Right.

BRAD: You know, the tap is turning off, or electricity being out for a day or two. You know, buy a backup generator.

Build a go bag that has your passport, your car titles. Your birth certificate.

You know, that kind of stuff.

GLENN: Okay.

BRAD: And have that ready to grab, at a moment's notice. Those are things people can do right now.

And it doesn't take much.

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