RADIOJanuary 29, 2024

Will Congress ARREST anyone over DELETED Jan. 6 files?

House Republicans have discovered that just DAYS before Republicans took control of the House in 2023, the Democrat-run Select January 6th Committee deleted over a terabyte of data from its records. Rep. Barry Loudermilk, who leads the committee reviewing the previous committee’s investigation, joins Glenn to discuss what the Republicans are doing next. Many of the files, he explains, are still password protected. But he details what was in some of the unlocked files that had been deleted: “[These] were critical to the investigation.” But is anything going to come of this, Glenn asks? Will anyone be arrested or subpoenaed for what may be an illegal attempt to hide the facts from the American people?

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: We have representative Barry Loudermilk.

There's a story we have been trying to get to this week.

And we just kept putting it off. Putting it off.

And I was going to have it next hour. I was going to try to do it hour three, of the podcast. But I have Kari Lake on in half an hour. So stand by for that.

But Barry has been looking into the January 6th committee, and the deleted files that contain critical information. They deleted them before the G.O.P. was able to access them.

Now, they have recovered them. But we're looking for the password.

And the password is: Never.

Barry Loudermilk is with us now.

Congressman, how are you?

BARRY: Good, Glenn.

It's good to be with you again. Hey, we haven't tried the password never. It could work.

GLENN: Could do hate Trump.

Could do scam.

I mean, I could go all day on those.

Barry, what is the significance of these files?

BARRY: Well, that is what we don't know. All -- we know at this point, is they were recovered from what -- a series of hard drives, that were given to us. That were the hard drives of the computers on the select committee of January 6. At one point, in my communications with Benny Thompson who was the chairman of the select committee, regarding videos that he omitted that they must keep.

That were critical to the investigation. And these were the videos of the depositions, which even Liz Cheney, in her recent book says was so important that we videotaped. So the American people could see the truth.

But they decided not to preserve those. We were communicating with them about that, as well as documents that he sent to the White House, in DHS, instead of keeping them and giving them to us.

In his response to me, as to what happened to these documents. Why didn't he keep them.

He mentioned that they handed over four terabytes of digital data to us.

The problem is, we only had less than three terabytes of digital data. So when we found out, that these videotapes were missing, that we searched for those. They didn't exist. He admitted to not keeping those.

I don't know where those are. We're still trying to find those.

GLENN: You know, can somebody check?

I'm pretty sure the NSA has a really big storage cloud in Utah. Can we maybe knock on the door and say, hey, are you a lending library? Can we see some stuff?

BARRY: That is a possibility there. We've even gone to the House recording studio, who is when you normally do a deposition, and you have it recorded, video recorded. You just call the House studio. This is what they do. They bring the equipment. They record it.

And they keep it. And they make it available to you. And when they're ready to archive it, you get it from them. What the Select Committee did was different. Because when Bennie Thompson told us, he didn't keep any of these, we just went to the recording studio. And said, can you give us copies of them?

And they said, well, we didn't have any. Because they didn't allow us to have any.

In fact, they only borrowed our equipment.

They wouldn't even use our people to do the recording.

So that sounded to me like, wow. This was planned from the beginning.

So we hired. Trying to figure out where these one-plus terabytes of data were, we hired independent, outside computer forensics company, to take those hard drives. And do a low-level scan of them.

And as you would expect, a hard drive that someone uses. You will find some deleted files.

Now, you see files that were deleted early on in an investigation.

You know, it's doing work.

You delete duplicates.

You get rid of it.

What highlighted to us. Were files.

Particularly, some that were deleted.

That they recovered.

That were deleted literally just days or hours before the Republicans took control.

One of those documents that was not password encrypted for some reason.

It was found in the recycle bin.

Was related to the depositions that were sent to the White House.

So there's a deleted file, that was deleted on January -- or January 1st, 2 days before the Republicans took control.

Related to documents that we know that they had, that they sent away. And we didn't have access to.

There were also 117, I believe, the number of documents, that were password-protected and encrypted, that we had seen the file names. We can see what type of file it is. And those names don't match anything that we already have.

So they are unique documents, that I believe we haven't seen before. But we can't get into.

So how critical they are?

We don't know. I just want someone to give me the password.

GLENN: Don't we have people that do that?

I've seen it in movies and stuff. You put a little box over the password.

Like password is cake.

All right. So, anyway, that's my password, by the way.

I'm going to change it now.

We're talking to chairman Barry Loudermilk from Georgia.

The conservative Republican from Georgia.

Is any of this illegal?

I mean, aren't you supposed to preserve documents?

I know if this happened. And Congress wanted information, that was on my computer. And I just went whoops, I deleted it all.

I think my butt would be in a chair in front of you guys. And I would be in trouble.

Wouldn't I?

BARRY: You could be. Yes.

Because if you deleted it, at a point, when you knew that Congress was looking for it.

Or you know the courts were looking for it.

Yes. You're free to delete anything you want today.

Once you know --

GLENN: And they did know.

BARRY: And they did know. We sent them letters of preservation.

The clerk's office has rules regarding what should be preserved. And video depositions are a part of that.

GLENN: So why is nothing happening.

BARRY: Well, we -- we got to know exactly the extent of where things are.

And my number one priority is getting the document, so we can -- you know, not only the passwords for these documents.

But getting the documents from the White House, and Homeland Security, that they have.

And so we are -- for lack of a better term, working with the White House right now.

The four depositions, they have, that are -- these are House documents. They are not executive branch. These are documents owned by the House of Representatives.

They are White House employees who testified before the committee. And the chairman sent those to the White House.

We had requested them. They didn't respond. Requested them again. They responded and said, okay. We'll send them to you once we redact them. So we sent them four documents, so heavily recontacted. It was literally pages of --

GLENN: Look, Barry. What do you think of this. Let me just offer.

I can get on the air now. I can probably find somebody that goes by the name of like, you know, one eye. And he can have that thing, hacked open, you know, pretty quickly.

And we would do it in the Capitol. You know, under supervision and stuff.

But I think we can get that done.

I cannot believe with the power and the might of the United States of America, we can't open up those files.

Hmm.

BARRY: We're going to be looking at. We've contacted some different terms, if you will. That have technology, to try to get into -- some of them say, with the new encryption standards.

They may not be able to. But we're looking at doing that.

In the meantime, we're just trying to find somebody that has the passwords.

I asked Benny Thompson for them. Just a simple letter. Saying, we found those documents.

Not making an accusation there.

We just -- they're encrypted. Don't know why you encrypted them.

We need the password.

He responded with a three-page letter. I think he used ultra MAGA in it. A year or ten times.

Making all kinds of accusations. I have no idea what you're talking about.

GLENN: Yeah. Seems like obstruction.

BARRY: Which could be the case. It could be that he doesn't bank what the committee did for two years.

Sometimes, he knows what those password are.

GLENN: Yeah. Yeah.

Talking to Representative Barry Loudermilk about January 6. There's one other thing I want to hit quickly.

This whole pipe bomb story is falling apart quickly. I mean, all of the January 6th narrative. Is falling apart. Any update on the pipe bomb thing. I mean, this week, we -- we saw the video of an undercover Capitol Police man, who is supposedly, just a passerby at the beginning. Now we find out, it's Capitol Police. He spots it. Then goes over to the Secret Service.

They finish their sandwiches. Let kids walk by it.

Before they get out of their car. And -- and, you know, then send the robot out to disarm it. What the hell is going on with this?

BARRY: That's a good question. We've been working with Representative Thomas Massie in Kentucky. This is something he wanted to take on, as a member of the Judiciary Committee and the Weaponization Committee.

So we've been working closely with him, pulling video records. Doing some investigative work ourselves.

And, you know, we released in the last -- couple of weeks. It was an undercover Capitol Police officer.

Even before we knew that. We had video of the person, who placed the pipe bomb.

You can watch him place it. The night before, and it was obvious, that he was putting it in a place, to be found.

GLENN: Yes.

BARRY: The Secret Service has the vice president elect, Kamala Harris, at that building. They were there, sitting literally feet away from this pipe bomb, and never saw it. I mean, they're supposed to be doing sweeps of the building, before you bring somebody there. And that pipe bomb had sat there from the night before.

GLENN: If you look at the pipe bomb.

If you look at the pipe bomb. It was like designed we mega mind. I mean, it's so clear.

It's got the kitchen timer on it. It is so clear, that it was meant to be found, and that it's a pipe bomb, that my dog would have sniffed it out.

How did they miss it?

Except, they did find it. Twenty minutes before the vote was supposed to go down on Capitol Hill. Wow! And that's where the timer was stopped. It stopped at 20 minutes.

Before the hour, or whatever.

Wow, what a coincidence that is!

And why is it that Kamala Harris, we didn't even know where she was? And anything about this, for a year.

And how is it that this is the greatest scandal and the darkest day in American history, and yet, the people that would gain the most, from saying, there were two pipe bombs. They planned on blowing up buildings.

Haven't said a word about it.

Why?

BARRY: And the FBI pulls resources from the investigation, and moves them over to helping prosecute the people that were there on January 6th.

It seems to me, a lone pipe bomber would be more dangerous, that's still out there. Than people who have already, you know -- even if they did something wrong, which there were people that did.

GLENN: Yes, I agree.

BARRY: But there are other people, that they're spending an awful lot of resources, what should be misdemeanor charges. That you'll pull resources from investigating a pipe bomb, to go after these folks.

Then there's the issue of the gallows. You know, the infamous gallows, that Biden is using in his campaign right now.

GLENN: Yeah.

And they were -- they were built the night before, in front of the police!

BARRY: 6 o'clock in the morning.

Why didn't someone tear that down?

I mean, with all the security, with all the police, with US park police.

The FBI, Metropolitan Police, the US Capitol Police, in droves. All around that area. That morning.

GLENN: And we have it all on tape.

Yeah. And we have it all on tape. And we can't find the guys that built it, can we?

BARRY: Well, the FBI sure hasn't.

GLENN: Yeah, that's weird.

BARRY: Independent investigative reporter, that's doing tremendous work.

Much like Steve Baker has been doing this. Has been working on this, and he has more leads than the FBI did.

GLENN: Yeah, that's weird.

BARRY: Let me tell you, Steve has done a tremendous job.

We've spent a lot of time with him. Of course, he's been in our office, looking at videos.

He's doing a great service to the American people, by exposing some in-depth corruption. Our prayers are with him, and our support is with him as well.

GLENN: Thank you. I will say, everybody at the Blaze. And I ask the audience to do the same.

Pray for him. Because we're expecting him to be arrested any day, and we don't even know the charges. And they won't tell him the charges. And all he did was investigate.

He was there just as a reporter, investigating.

And now that he's exposing things, all of a sudden, oh, they -- they're going to file charges.

So any day. Thank you so much for your help on that and everything else. I appreciate it. God bless.

BARRY: Well, the American people deserve to know the truth.

GLENN: They sure do. Congressman Barry Loudermilk from the great state of Georgia.

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