RADIOJanuary 09, 2024

Chip Roy RIPS INTO Speaker Johnson's 'GARBAGE' spending deal

Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson and Democratic Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer have agreed on spending levels on the next budget bill. But Rep. Chip Roy (R-TX) is furious. While Speaker Johnson has touted the agreement as a way to cut back on spending and avoid a government shutdown, Rep. Roy points out that it would spend nearly $60 billion more than Nancy Pelosi's last spending bill and $100 billion more than is needed (once again, without addressing the border crisis): "The Republicans are doing exactly what they always do, which is be the party of excuses ... New speaker, more of the same garbage."

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Chip. Are you there?

CHIP: How are you, brother?

GLENN: You know, I would be better, if I thought you were bringing happy news to the table.

But the House and the Senate, have put together a budget, that they say is going to cut spending. Boy. Is it ever. And really has had to go to do with the border, does it?

CHIP: Yeah. Look. Glenn, first of all, greetings from West Des Moines, Iowa, where it's 20 degrees outside. And a snowstorm coming in.

But the real snowstorm coming in is coming to DC. It will hammer the American people.

Republicans are doing exactly what they always do, which is be the party of excuses.

The party that will never find a way to not capitulate and spend more money that we don't have, and rack up more debt. So what are we doing now? Speaker Johnson. Speaker, do more of the same garbage.

We will have a bill that is $1.66 trillion. That is almost -- I think that's about $58 billion more than the disastrous Nancy Pelosi omnibus bill, that Republicans opposed a year ago.

It is $100 billion more than what we would get if Republicans had the spine to walk up to the House floor and send a simple year-long continuing resolution over to the Senate.

That would trigger the cuts, all -- albeit meager in the debt deal last summer. It would trigger cuts, that we could get, $1.562 trillion in spending.

They won't do that. Because they're all in the hip pocket of all the lobbyests.

They hide behind our military. And now we will not get the border secure, we will spend 100 billion more than we have to. We will increase spending over the Nancy Pelosi spending deal.

And Republicans are going to try to sell you and the American people, that that somehow is a win. Don't believe that. This is what the American people are tired of.

Look, I will call balls and strikes. I call balls and strikes on Kevin.

I will call balls and strikes on Mike as speaker. People should call balls and strikes on me, that's the way it works.

GLENN: So, Chip, we're running out of time and options here.

I don't know if anybody in Washington has seen that. But the Republicans, they don't care about -- I mean, they're not in touch with the average American.

They're just not. At least in the ruling class of Republican circles.

They're -- I don't know. In it for themselves. Or just completely delusional, on what the country is facing now.

The border alone is such a major stress, on absolutely everything.

From national security. To the economy.

To our social fabric. To our social services.

What are -- what is the average person supposed to do at this point?

CHIP: Well, I think what the Republican Senate will tell you, the House and the Senate.

They're trying to negotiate a border deal right now, on the back of a Ukraine spending fight.

Now, here's what my problem with that.

Yet again, I'm being asked to accept -- in October, November, I was accepted twice, continuing resolutions of Nancy Pelosi's spending levels.

And now it's a National Defense Authorization Act, which got rid of almost all of our policy changes we put in our version.

And then extended FISA over 16 months, so we can have a government that continues to spy on the American people. And now I'm being asked to accept this ridiculous spending deal with no real border security measures in it.

They will be a token.

So I will get a promise, trust me. Right?

We will do border security on a Ukraine deal, when half of the American people don't even want to give another dollar to Ukraine anyway. Irrespective of whether you actually got a border deal. Which neither you nor I, nor your listeners believe will actually materialize.

GLENN: So wait. Wait.

Chip, help me out. Which one. I think they're both, a gun to the head dangerous.

But which one is more pressing right now? The financial. The financial. The budget deal. Or the border.

CHIP: In my view, they're actually both important. But I will take border security first.

But here's the problem. Here's the problem.

We can do both. We have in our hands because of the work we did last year, for all the speaker fights and negotiations.

I don't want to set aside. I don't want people to totally give up hope. We've bought last year, and we did what we've never done before. We passed a border security bill at HR2, to actually do the job.

He did so good, that the Wall Street Journal today was editorializing against it. Saying it was too hard, that it had things in there about building the wall.

That it had e-verify in there.

So if Wall Street Journal is editorializing against your border bill, it's probably a good border bill.

So you have our border bill, which was effective. We passed it. We got it done. I hear chuckling. You know I'm right.

GLENN: I know.

CHIP: Side note, it is the chamber of commerce, Wall Street Journal Republicans who have totally screwed our country for two decades. Because they want their cheap labor.

They want to sit down at the Rio Grande. They want to have a sign that said, no trespassing. While they're going, wink, wink, nod, nod to the other side, saying help wanted.

Come on in, we don't give a crap whether our border is wide open. We don't give a crap if terrorists are coming again.

We don't give a crap if cartels are in power. We don't give a crap if our kids are dying from fentanyl.

That's what's happening right now.

So we've got a bill that's passed that's good.

Bird in hand, we should use it to negotiate to get border security.

We have a bird in hand, which is cash on spending. They want the caps that Glenn Beck and Chip Roy were negotiating. They were caps, that actually now, if we were to pass a continuing resolution for the rest of the year. They would trigger 1.562 trillion. Which would mean we would cut spending between 40 and $70 billion. Rather than -- which is additional, $100 billion.

GLENN: Can I just -- can I just point, that's not a lot of money, when you're spending 4 trillion!

I mean, I -- I -- it's -- honestly, it's like going to -- it's going to Bill Gates.

And saying, Bill, your spending is out of control. And I noticed, you bought four new cars last year. We have to stop spending the four new cars.

Four new cars!

He has a Boeing business jet he's running around in. I mean, this is so ridiculous to talk about these small numbers as being so substantial because they're not.

We lost -- what was it? $250 billion. We just lost last year!

Just lost.

Sent it out to the wrong people. Overpaid.

What are you talking about?

CHIP: Yeah. I mean, Glenn, it's absolutely ridiculous.

The amount of waste and the spending. But more importantly. We're funding the very bureaucrats that are targeting you, and undermining our freedom.

We're targeting -- we're funding IRS agents. We're funding DOJ bureaucrats that go after the former president, go after you and me. We're funding a DHS to not secure the border. That smug Alejandro Mayorkas who stood up there on the stage. And laugh at us, and blame it on Texas.

We're funding the lawyers to go to the Supreme Court, and challenge Texas in court, saying we can't cut razor wire.

I mean, you can't even put it into words.

I have to be honest with you. I'm on the ground in Iowa. Okay?

I'm meeting with voters every day. Very focused voters. And they are ready to rumble.

They are ready for a change. They are sick and tired of what's going on in the swamp.

They want somebody new. They want a new direction.

They want some change. Not to get into the political side.

I'm going to hear from governor DeSantis obviously. They want somebody who will actually do what they freaking said they would do, like Governor DeSantis did in Florida. And, look, he never flip-flopped.

And I heard on your show earlier. You asked about Vivek. He says a lot of great things. But he's flip-flopped a million times. On vaccines. On Trump. Covid, generally. I could go down a list. Governor DeSantis delivers up and down.

And so Governor DeSantis cut spending. Governor DeSantis took on Fauchi. Governor DeSantis took on COVID tyranny. He took on Disney and won.

He's now got Miami-Dade, teachers unions on the run. He got universal school choice passed. He's got an economy booming. That guy is actually a machine.

I've never seen anybody like it. And I've worked with different people. The guy is crushing it, and he's doing great in Iowa.

GLENN: I am a big fan of Ron DeSantis. I would vote for him in a heartbeat. Big fan of Ron DeSantis. And, again, I think -- I think the only reason why Ron DeSantis is not doing real well, is because people are saying, well, I'll take Donald Trump. Because it's Ron DeSantis. I don't think it's the same thing. But I think that's the same thing. Donald Trump or Ron DeSantis.

CHIP: Let's just compare apples to oranges there. You want to talk about the border.

Governor DeSantis stood up. He fought to get bills passed there when he was in the House. He stood up to fight for the good border security bill.

In 2018, Governor DeSantis was against Paul Ryan's amnesty bill. Donald Trump was for it. Governor DeSantis will actually fight for citizenship.

President Trump said in 2016 he would sign an executive order for citizenship.

He didn't do it.

Donald Trump said he would build the wall, have Mexico pay for it.

He then got up and gave excuses. Well, we have no mechanisms to make them pay for it.

We never -- we didn't get it built. They didn't pay for it.

Ron DeSantis stood up against Fauci. Shut down COVID hearings.

Look at President Trump. Gave Fauci a way out of office in January of 2021.

Look, I could go down the list even further, but there's no comparison.

Governor DeSantis is the guy we've been waiting for. Who will deliver, and he can serve for eight years. I love President Trump for what he did to shake up the swamp. But let's just be clear. He did not deliver. He didn't repeal Obamacare. He let Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell wag him around town.

We didn't get Obamacare repealed. Now you and I are sitting here screwed sitting here with high health care costs, letting insurance companies run our health care system.

And instead of actually having healthcare freedom, we have empowered Anthony Fauci to screw Americans.

Like, how many things do you have to fail on, to then go around and say, what a great president you were. Compared to a governor, who literally delivered on everything on the report card.

This is why President Trump will not debate Governor DeSantis. Because Governor DeSantis would actually clean his clock, if he compared his batting record with the former president.

GLENN: So let me go back to the -- the budget, the border.

Everything that is happening in America now.

Americans are target to cancel all of their streaming services.

There's a great story in my show prep today. About the restaurant owner that has broke down the math that causes him to charge $16 for a BLT sandwich.

And when you read it. At first, you're like $16 for a WLT. Then when you read it. You're like, okay. I'm surprised he's only charging $16 for that BLT. Americans feel it. They know their country is being taken. They know the Justice Department is completely out of control. The -- the Pentagon didn't even have a leader for a week. And we're starting to feel like, wow. We're at the end of this thing. What do we do, if the people in Washington don't listen to the people? What do we do?

CHIP: Well, there's a number of things. One, we have to elect somebody good. I've already said my piece on that. We have to get a president that will do it.

Number two, we in Congress have to keep holding ourselves accountable, and the people need to keep holding us accountable to do what we said we would do in Washington. I'll go back and fight this week. I will keep shining a light on it.

That's actually new.

We actually have groups there, who were actually doing the hard work of exposing all the garbage in these bills, and making it harder for these guys to capitulate. We will get there.

Have hope that people like Riley Gaines, stood up to the woke establishment.

People like Scott Smith, stood up to all the abuses in Virginia. Take hope that Chloe Cole stood up and said, you know what, these forced transition surgeries are garbage, or Mark Howitzer stood up to the DOJ in Philadelphia.

We should follow their lead. The American people should stand up and reclaim their inheritance, and keep pushing. Get people elected this year, who will fight.

Pay attention to who they are. Get out there, and have them make a the difference. Keep holding us accountable.

But also, remember, if we want to save this country, you talk about inflation. Talk about how everybody is suffering. We have to open up American energy. We don't talk about that enough.

Democrats are jamming through all of their subsidies for EVs. I don't think the American people know, there's a rule they are about to embrace, that will mandate two-thirds of the EVs by 2032.

That will destroy the internal combustion engine. It will destroy our ability to -- it will crush the economy. Drive the costs of goods and services up.

And I just want Republicans for one freaking moment to fight Democrat, with half of the energy. Half of the energy. That Democrats fight our country and our freedom.

That's what I will go back to Washington. When I fly back tomorrow. I will absolutely rip into my Republican colleagues, for this debacle of the spending bill.

And we will keep trying to force their hand.

GLENN: Chip, can you give me maybe three more minutes?

Chip, there is another story about the Supreme Court taking on the Donald Trump ballot case.

They're taking their own sweet time to do it. But this is something that is sweeping America.

It they take Donald Trump off the ballot, again, what do people do?

CHIP: Well, it's a great question. First of all, what they're doing. Look, obviously, I supported the Donald Trump, 2016, 2020.

I'll support what they're doing against him in Colorado. It's an absolute travesty.

It's politicizing the entire process. There is no conviction for insurrection. It's all a joke. They're doing it purposefully and politically. We are going to have to start responding in kind.

I'm willing -- I think -- I think -- this court will strike this down.

And will call this out for what it is.

But we'll see. Right

And then, if they don't. And then I can assure you, there is going to be then reactions as Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick said in Texas. I think even governor DeSantis has brought it up.

Do we start saying that Joe Biden needs to be pulled off the ballot?

He's been in complete violation, violating our laws, violating an oath to the Constitution.

Endangering the American people, aiding and abetting our enemies in the cartels, who are flooding our country. So how is that not in violation of the 14th Amendment?

That, you know, aiding and abetting your enemies.

That's the language of the 14th Amendment.

So if we're going to play that game, and adjudicate that based on the whims of what a state wants to decide, as opposed to some actual convictions after a Civil War, you know, demonstration of insurrection, after a Civil War, as was intended in the 14th Amendment.

Then what's good for the goose, is good for the gander.

We will have to fight fire with fire. Right now, let's pray the court gets this right.

I think they will. But, man, these are strange times. So we will see what happens. I assume you're like me, that you think they will.

But, you know --

GLENN: I think they will. But the Democrats, again, I think they will.

Ask that will pass. But the Democrats will use that. As see, this out of control conservative court. You know, it just has to be.

We have to have are other new people on.

We have to get rid of these people. I mean, that's what they will use --

CHIP: No question. That's what -- but then we will just use it against them. Say this is why we need it more. We have a couple of our guys getting older.

You know, Sam Alito. Justice Thomas. God bless him. Our two most conservative justices.

And, you know, we've got to replace those guys. And people at least good or period of time.

Because the tree that Trump appointed were good. But they're not as good as those guys. They're not Scalia and Thomas. They're just okay.

GLENN: Yeah. Yeah.

Chip, thank you so much.

Enjoy the weather in Iowa.

CHIP: It's lovely. It ain't Dallas, I will tell you that.

By the way, our good friends of Patriot Mobile. Their good friends. God bless you.

And I'll be back in Texas, sometime soon.

GLENN: You've got it. Thank you. All right. That's Chip Roy from the great state of Texas, who is out on the campaign trail for Governor DeSantis today. Talking a little bit about the new deal that Republicans have cut to cut all this spending.

No. I've never been for a continuation.

You know, but I think I am this time.

Because there's more cuts, in just giving a continuation of the spending bill for another year.

What -- what -- what good are the Republicans at this point?

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

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

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

Is there a sinister GOP plan to SELL national parks?

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

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

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

Chris Rufo, I really respect.

I'm totally against selling this land.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No, and it still isn't.

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

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

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

That's not what they mean by affordable housing.

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

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

There's plenty of land all around.

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

Some of it is like the surface of the moon!

But no. No. No.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yada. Yada. Yada.

More about Teddy Roosevelt.

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

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

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

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

Let me give you just my perspective on this.

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

I don't hike myself.

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

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

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

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

But can we just look at the perspective here?

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

How much land do we have?

Well, that's about the size of France.

And Germany. Poland.

And the United Kingdom, combined!

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

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

Okay?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And those policies are real.

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

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

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

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

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

The federal government.

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

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

It's not going to happen.

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

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

Okay.

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

Why is it hard to access that land?

Well, let me give you a story. Yellowstone.

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

But it's the American bison.

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

Did you know that?

Here's almost an endangered species.

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

Ranchers, I would love to raise real American bison.

And I would protect them.

I would love to have them roaming on my land.

But you can't!

You can't.

Real bison, you can't.

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

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

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

We will thin the herd.

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

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

I have pictures of piles of bald eagles.

That they'll never show you.

They'll never show you.

You can't have a bald eagle feather!

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

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

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

And nobody says a thing.

Okay.

But we're talking about lands.

States can't afford to manage it.

Okay. But how can the federal government?

Now, this is really important.

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

Our entitlement programs, all straight infrastructure, crumbling.

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

Because they can always print money.

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

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

Everything is falling apart..

So what's the real plan here?

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

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

But the real goal is 5050.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sorry, under Biden.

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

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

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

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

And all of the banks are like, okay.

Well, you can't pay anymore.

What happens in a default?

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

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

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

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

That is really important!

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

So what is the alternative?

Dershowitz SLAMS ‘expert’ lies in explosive trans surgery debate

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

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Alan Dershowitz, how are you?

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

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

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

It's insane!

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

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

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

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

GLENN: Okay.

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

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

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

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

Some states go the other way.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You leave it to the public.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Experts have become partisans, just like everybody else.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Take guns, for example.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And these are rights that are enshrined.

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

ALAN: Oh, no.

There's a big difference, of course.

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

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

Whether it could be well-regulated by states.

Look, these are interesting debates.

And the Supreme Court, you know, decides these.

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have an article today, with gay stone.

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

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

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

Judges are supposed to judge.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So no.

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

GLENN: Last question.

I am proudly for Israel.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

GLENN: Should we drop a bomb?

ALAN: Yes, we should.

GLENN: Our plane drop the bomb?

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

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

GLENN: What is the preventive state out, Alan?

ALAN: Just now. Just now.

Very well on Amazon.

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

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

GLENN: Okay.

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

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

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

THE GLENN BECK PODCAST

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

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

Watch Glenn's FULL Interview with Shad Sullivan HERE