RADIOMarch 15, 2022

Dave Ramsey: Don’t let FEAR derail your financial plans

Dave Ramsey, financial expert and host of ‘The Ramsey Show,’ joins Glenn to discuss how fear of our unknown future may be affecting how some Americans invest or plan their finances today. It’s always best to assess risk in the marketplace, Ramsey explains, but ‘when the fear kicks in it coats your brain and lowers your critical thinking skills.’ Plus, Ramsey describes the three components of inflation we’re experiencing today, and he predicts how much further inflation may go…

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: So if it isn't Dave Ramsey. Hi, Dave, how are you?

DAVE: Great, my friend. How are you is this?

GLENN: I'm very good. But I do want to thank you for the pleasure of having my wife come home, who listens to you every day, and say, honey, see, I told you, you were crazy.

Dave Ramsey said you were crazy. Thank you for that, Dave.
(laughter)

DAVE: Any time, my friend. I am just here to help. I'm a big Glenn Beck supporter.

GLENN: Yeah, no. No. We don't even have to go down this road. We are good friends. We have been for a long time. I have a lot of respect for you, and I know it goes the other way. Here's what I do want to do. You were talking about the Great Reset.

You're in a different business, really, than I am.

You give financial advice. I don't. I always say, this is what I'm doing. But don't listen to me. Because I have no idea, what I'm talking about.

I wanted to get from you, what you think The Great Reset is.

DAVE: Well, the irony of this is, is that both our books came out the same day. January the 11th.

GLENN: Yeah. That's right.

DAVE: And both of them were on the best-seller list, at the same time.

Baby steps, millionaires. That actually started this conversation this morning too. Because what happened, a guy followed our baby steps, and became a millionaire.

Completely out of debt.

Has a net worth of $100 million. Calls in. And says, hey. I'm thinking about not investing anymore, because of the Glenn Beck reset. That's what started --

GLENN: Hold on. Hold on. Just a second. First of all, it's The Great Reset. Not the Glenn Beck reset. And I have never said that. I still -- I said, if you are concerned about it, spread your money out as wide as you can, because I don't know what will hold.

But I still have my house. I still have money in the stock market. I'm very careful on who I invest with. I don't want to invest with BlackRock. Although, if you want to make money, that's what you should do.

If you want to make money.

DAVE: Well, if you have no principles.

GLENN: Yeah.

DAVE: So, you know, no. I'm not an expert on the great reset.

You are. You wrote the book on it. And diversification, what you're talking about there. Spreading your money out.

The Bible says, spread your portions to seven, yes, to eight. For disaster, make them upon -- diversification is the oldest financial rule ever. Never put all your eggs in one basket. Some dude has the basket, and he's been smoking pot. Do not put all your eggs in one basket. Correct?

GLENN: Correct.

DAVE: So that's what we're talking about. And, certainly, we would espouse that as well. What I was trying to do was keeping the guy from freaking out. Becoming scared that the world was coming to an end, and trashing all his investments, that caused him to become a millionaire in the first place.

GLENN: Yeah. So, Dave, this is one of the reasons why I'm thrilled to have you on. Because honestly, you know, I don't know if you know what stakeholder capitalism is. But that's the driving force, or the theory behind The Great Reset.

And you've got the Treasury. You have Yellen saying, this is what we're doing. We're going to have stakeholder capitalism. That's 21st century fascism.

And if you don't mind, not telling your school board, I think you're wrong.

Then you're not going to have a problem with ESG scores.

But you have to play ball, exactly the way, they are telling you. Down the road. With digital money, which is something that the executive order came out last week on.

And so I don't know what it's going to look like on the other side of this.

I have no idea. What's going on. I do know, just with inflation, we have got to batten down the hatches. So what should people do, to batten down the hatches?

DAVE: Well, when we go back in history, the thing we always want to avoid. We always want to be safe. We always want to assess risk in the marketplace. What you want to talk about. We always want to be wise then. The storms are coming. We perceive a storm. Here's where people get crazy. When the fear kicks in, it coats your brain and lowers your critical thinking skills, and they go nuts.

And so I'll give you an old example, I was thinking of this morning, knowing I was going to be on here.

In 1982 Peter Crase (phonetic) was put on the Grace Commission by Ronald Reagan, to study government overspending.

And the deficit, and the damage of the deficits. His cochair on that was a guy named Harry Figgie.

Both of them were billionaires at the time. And Figgie wrote a book later that year, called Bankruptcy 1995, predicting the end of the American economy as we know it because of the deficit increase. Apparently, he was wrong.

Larry Burkett wrote a book called The Coming Economic Earthquake that was predicted in 1992, the world was going to come to an end, and the economic crisis was going to cause America to end as we know it. And, apparently, was wrong.

My good friend, Robert Kiyosaki who wrote a wonderful book called Rich Dad Poor Dad, wrote a book called Rich Dad's Prophecy, where he predicted the end of the stock market as we know it in 2016. Apparently, he was wrong.

So I don't want people to not invest because of fear, by going -- swinging the pendulum too far to the other side. But it is wisdom, there in the middle, to say, hey. I don't like what's going on. I smell fascism. I smell Fauci running the economy. You know, I'm a Libertarian. Leave me free.

Because a free man will drive an economy. But when you start tinkering around in the background, in the back rooms with these things, is there something to be concerned about?

Sure. So you have to be wise about it. But don't oversteer the car, and flip it.

GLENN: Absolutely.

But let me ask you a couple of things.

First of all, I was called a fearmonger in 2006 and '7, when I said, this housing stuff, with the banks, it doesn't work.

There's going to be a collapse. Everybody called me crazy.

As he know, what happened was the crash of 2008. Now, it wasn't as bad as I thought. And that is only because of TARP.

Which was something that is absolutely unconstitutional. And unthinkable, before that crash.

DAVE: No question. No question.

GLENN: Now, I haven't read Kiyosaki's book, but I know him and I respect him.

DAVE: He's the guy.

GLENN: But there's a difference between the end of America and the end of, as he said, the stock market, as we know it.

Because I look at the stock market today, and it makes no sense. We're closing down all of -- you know, all businesses in America, and the rest of the world?

And the stock market continues to go up?

That's not the stock market that I know.

DAVE: Well, the stock market on the short-term is driven by profits. And profits are very, very real right now. In spite of all the economic crap out there. The profits are very real.

But to predict the end of the stock market. Is to predict every household name, that we know of, evaporating.

GLENN: Right. Right.

DAVE: Home Depot. Microsoft. Apple. McDonald's. Coca-cola are all zero. That's the end of the stock market. That's the end of America.

GLENN: Yes, it is.

But what I'm asking you is, the end of the stock market as we know it. I don't know what he wrote. And maybe he wrote, it will be at zero. I don't believe that.

I believe there are companies that will -- just like in the Great Depression. Companies that will fall away. Companies that are tried and true. And rock solid. And they will continue.

DAVE: Yeah. Well, any time stupid is stress tested. We get to see it's stupid. So that's what happens.

I think in '08, maybe you and I were arguing about gold if you remember. Or I was arguing with somebody about it, because everybody was buying gold in that crash. And I just pulled this up a minute ago.

I told people, don't buy gold. I've always told them not to buy gold.

So in the last 10 years, gold had a 3.71 percent rate of return, and the stock market has had a 12.2 percent rate of return.

GLENN: So I don't --

DAVE: Don't buy gold.

GLENN: Well, I disagree with you. The 3.5. When I started talking about it, it's up 10X. However, I don't buy it as my get rich thing. And I say this all the time. I don't buy it for investment. I buy it for insurance against insanity. It's the same reason why China just purchased 220,000 tons of gold. In the end, when the madness of printing becomes clear, the world generally resets, to some sort of a commodity, usually gold.

That's what they're doing now, in China.

DAVE: It completely melts down, it resets to a barter economy. Then a currency will erupt. And you will see that, on a completely collapsed economy. Venezuela or Nazi Germany, when hyperinflation. And it was a wheelbarrow load of money to buy a loaf of bread. So you have hyperinflation kick in. What happens is, currency is based on trust. So it's actually a spiritual animal, in that sense.

And so when you quit trusting that a piece of green paper, with the president's face on it, will buy something. Then you have to trust that something else will work.

And if you trust gold will work, that's fine.

But in a completely melted down economy, people really want bullets, water, blue jeans, and gasoline.

GLENN: So what do you say about the reset of a currency? Which Russia and China are doing clearly, trying to take the petrodollar apart.

So half the world would go that way if their plan would work. And a reset to a digital dollar.
DAVE: Well, it can happen. Again, the thing that has to happen for these things to occur is trust has to evaporate.

You have to no longer believe -- when a certain number of people believe that a bitcoin is worth something, that's the only thing that makes it worth something.

It has no intrinsic value. Actually, a bar of gold has no intrinsic value. Any more than a piece of paper does. It's when people are fighting over it. Arguing with it about. Negotiating for it, that gives it value. That's the trust factor.

You can move trust around in currencies. And that's why -- and I don't recommend trading currencies. I don't trade currencies. But if you will trade on the yin, you would say, all right. What is the outlook for China's economic conditioning?

GLENN: Right. So I'm not talking about trading currencies. I'm talking about the trading of currencies.

DAVE: Well, it's the same thing.

GLENN: The average person loses about 40 percent on their dollar. If you read Yellen. Yellen is talking about, this time it will be different because it will be an equitable exchange, when the new currency would be introduced.

Which scares the hell out of me.

DAVE: Sure. That's all socialism language. That's just BS. The thing that will happen --

GLENN: Wait. Wait.

When you say BS. You mean, it will not happen.

DAVE: She does not have the power she thinks she has. There's too many of us that really trust and believe in the free enterprise system. That really trust and believe in America for a couple of -- handful of socialists to actually run the dadgum thing. We're not going to tolerate it.

You think people would have stayed in their houses much longer off of Fauci? We were about done, boy? I mean, we were all about done, weren't we?

Were we about to come out of our houses with pitchforks and torches?

GLENN: I don't know. I live in Texas, so it was fine. I live in Texas, so it was fine here. But I think the rest of the country was.

DAVE: Yeah. If we go to back to work, and I was trying to kill my employees. So it was nutty. Just nutty. So the bottom line is, there are enough critical thinkers out there that are capitalist, that do believe in this.

That it's harder to take over the world than it sounds, in my opinion. I don't know. It's a fun discussion, because I love you. You have such a great brain. I love talking to you about this stuff. And, again, if we know it's a friendly territory, because we've got so much respect for each other over the years.

But so I think that I'm not going to write a book, that predicts a crash.

Because I've seen too many books written.

GLENN: Written. Sure.

DAVE: And I'm not predicting that on you, by the way. I'm just saying, I'm not going to change my investment strategy, dramatically, because I am fearful of the world as we know it, to quit operating.

GLENN: Well, I will tell you, that there's a lot of people out there, that having advice. That I think are morons.

I agree with your advice.

Because you are built around, get out of debt.

DAVE: Yeah. Sure.

GLENN: And there's nothing that you could do, that is better for preparedness, for any eventuality. Good or bad.

DAVE: And the funny thing, that works when you're prospering, and the economy is going bonkers good. And it works when there's really bad times. And these people in control are fascist and nutty.

It's hard to foreclose under my house, under current law, when I don't have a mortgage.

GLENN: Real quick.

I only have about a minute. Minute and a half. Your thoughts on inflation?

DAVE: There's two components to it right now.

The energy component is 100 percent on Biden's desk. He's completely screwed the pooch on this.

It's a supply/demand problem. He cut the faucet off, trying to be all greeny, and he drove gas prices through the roof.

He single-handedly did it. It's an administrative nightmare. There's another portion he had nothing to do with, but he's getting blamed for. And that was, we shut everything down, factories and everything for 90 days. Or 120 days. Or six months.

And we screwed up the supply. Then we screwed up the supply chain. Then there was an earthquake at sea, and when the tsunami hit, it was everybody came out and started buying stuff, and there wasn't any stuff to buy.

So the supply/demand curve drove prices through the roof. That wasn't his fault.

Then the third piece is the labor disruption.

Part of that is his fault, because he paid people to sit on their butts at home, when they should have gotten back to work.

If they had gotten back to work, we could have gotten the economy moving again in a proper way.

Instead, they're coming back. We're paying people $20 an hour at Target. Guess what, Target marks up the price of those goods on the shelf, to govern the $20 guy putting them on the shelf. So you're paying for his living wage.

GLENN: How much -- how much worse does it get?

DAVE: Yeah. I -- you know, I think it's going to smooth out pretty quick. The energy thing is the most disturbing. He could be controlled. He could fix it really quick. But he's not going to.

GLENN: Dave. I love you. Dave Ramsey. I mean, I disagree with you on almost all of this. The name of his book is Baby Steps.

DAVE: Agree with. What good say friend you agree with all the time?

GLENN: Baby Step Millionaires is the name of the book. It's a New York Times best-seller. As if that means anything anymore.

DAVE: No, it does not.

GLENN: Baby Steps Millionaires. If you've never listened to the show, you should. It's a great way to get your house in order. Dave, thank you very much. God bless.

DAVE: Love you, bro. Be good.

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