RADIOJune 05, 2025

Is this the REAL reason Elon Musk SLAMMED the “Big, Beautiful Bill?”

Republicans are divided over the “Big, Beautiful Bill.” President Trump wants Congress to pass it, Elon Musk called it a “disgusting abomination,” and Rep. Chip Roy “reluctantly” voted for its current version. Rep. Roy joins Glenn to give his take on the latest updates in the fight. Plus, he gives Glenn his theory on why Elon really slammed the bill.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: So last month, the big, beautiful bill cleared the House by a single vote.

The senators now have been meeting for weeks, behind closed doors.

They return to Washington, late Monday.

They revised the package.

Donald Trump just tweeted out, passing the one, big beautiful bill is a historic opportunity to turn our country around.

They need to work as fast as they can, to get this bill to my desk, before the Fourth of July. Then you have Elon Musk saying the massive outrageous pork-filled congressional spending bill say disgusting abomination.

Shame on those who voted for it. You know you did wrong. You know it!

Mike Johnson then says, well, that was advertise appointing.

With all due respect, Elon Musk is my friend. And he's terribly wrong about the one, big beautiful bill.

My for sure, my head hurts from all of this.

Now the White House is sending an additional $9 billion in cuts, which is nice.

But we're hoping for $1 trillion in cuts. And everybody is arguing in $9 billion in cuts.

How is this thing going to even pass?

What is happening here?

We have Chip Roy, who voted for the last one, reluctantly. And I don't know where he stands now. Chip Roy, welcome to the program. How are you, championship.

CHIP: Glenn, how are you doing, brother?

GLENN: I'm good. I'm good. Must not be fun being you right now.

CHIP: Well, you know, here's the thing, when you have a reputation for trying to do the right thing, people do, I think, want to come to you, to figure out, what's the score here? What's the real deal? I'm proud that I think people see me as someone who tries to be honest. And kind of work the lie this. To achieve what you and I and all your listeners want to achieve. We have an obligation to get this done. But we have to get this done right. You said thank you for saying that I voted for it reluctantly.

Because I did reluctantly vote for it. I messaged you at the time. Was reluctant. We have to weight a lot of things right now.

We have a president who was given a mandate, a president that you and I support what he's doing, taking on the establishment, taking on this town.

You know, rooting all this DEI and woke garbage, you know, pushing the barriers. Steering the border. All the things that we know are happening. And we need to do sort of things in this bill. We do need tax relief. We need to extend the tax cuts. We need economic growth by putting more money in the hands of the pockets of Americans.

Those are all important things. But we have to cut spending.

And the swamp creatures in Congress aren't good at that. People like me that are beating our head against the wall, trying to demonstrate. Hey, here's what we need to do, here's how we need to cut.

So now we have to balance this thing. The reason I was reluctant is because it does do some really good things that we bled and fought for, for two months, Glenn. I mean, the week before last, we were at three straight days, going down, negotiating at the White House. Negotiating folks.

And what we got was good. Was it great?

No, it was good.

We got the Inflation Reduction Act reduced down. We got a full repeal basically of all future projects.

But, no. We don't build a 400 billion existing project. We got historic Medicare reductions. Reductions in the increases, yes.

But a trillion dollars' worth, it's never been done, Glenn. Literally, but is that good enough for the moment? Maybe not.

I think we have to do better on that.

All the things about the vulnerable versus the able-bodied.

We got Medicaid work requirements moved out from 29 to 26. We fought like hell to make the bill, something that I think that we could be proud of certain elements.

But Elon is not wrong. Okay?

Elon is not wrong. For the moment, we need to do better.

We need more spending restraint. We need to meet this moment, with the actual deficit reduction that is necessary.

If we get economic growths from the taxes, if we get economic growths from the regulatory policy, if we get economic growths because the president is strong and leading, then we can get out of this mess.

But it's that plus spending restraints. Last point.

I do think it's worth noting, that I'm not sure that Elon is really excited about the extent to which, we are killing the subsidies across-the-board.

GLENN: Wow.

CHIP: All future subsidies for EVs, for solar panels, for the wing craft, all future subsidies we are mostly killing.

There is a few lingering projects. We take it down.

The left is losing their damn mind, Glenn. So there's a little of that that's also at play. So that's a long-winded explanation. A lot to do. We're pushing the Senate. They need to go further. I think we need to fix some stuff.

But I can promise you this, Glenn. If this bill backslides, if they work off what we got, which I don't think is necessarily good enough, I can promise you I will oppose it in the House. So we'll see what the Senate does.

GLENN: Your speculation on what they're going to do? Are they making it worse right now? Is it getting better?

CHIP: I think there are forces at play, that are desperately trying to undo the benefits we got, with respect to repealing the Green New stamp subsidies. Which by the way, the President of the United States campaigned fully and clearly on terminating the green new stamp subsidy.

There are forces, who want to undo that. There are forces in the House, that regret voting for the subsidy he did it.

I think there are forces in the Senate, who are wary of some of our Medicare reforms, which were important. On work requirements, on eligibility. To tighten down and make sure we are trying to make sure the able bodies aren't getting benefits, et cetera.

I don't think it went far enough.

So we will to have work hard, just to hold the line at the House bill, which, Glenn, I would say is on the edge of whether it's good enough to merit moving forward, and hoping we get 3 yards and a cloud of dust.

I will tell you, that if we can repeal IRA subsidies, get the Medicare reforms. Constrain the spending, and the economic growth in the tax policy.

That it's moving the ball down the field.

That's I didn't hold my nose. But if we were truly a conservative Congress, we would cut more. That's just the truth.

GLENN: So I read all kinds of things from the banking sector.

That we're talking about our treasury bills.

That we are -- we are so dangerously close.

You raise the debt ceiling yet again, we are dangerously close to the rest of the world saying, I can't buy their debt anymore.

I mean, they're not serious about anything.

Do you believe we're that close?

CHIP: I believe we're in a very -- yeah. I believe we're on a knife's edge. I think that the bond markets are suggesting that. That's why Scott Bessent has been saying, we need to get deficits down to the percentage of GDP. So we can signal to the bond markets, what needs to be signaled. I think we have an obligation to get this right, right now.

In order to frankly --

GLENN: So why isn't anybody listening to that?

Why isn't anybody listening to Bessent and the bond market?

That's lights out for America, if we don't get that right.

CHIP: Yeah. And let me give you another scary point. If we have to refinance our debt at higher interest rates, which currently we would be projecting, much higher interest rates than the CBO is even projecting. How many times the CBO. We all recognize that they're flawed.

It doesn't matter. You have to look at the model that's in front of you.

The current model projects refinancing that debt at three and a half percent.

What if we have to refinance under the levels of four, four and a half percent? Five percent.

You will have massively more interest expense. Instead of a trillion, it would be a trillion and a half. Instead of a trillion and a half, it would be 2 trillion.

We are going to gobble up our entire government expenditures of interest.

I mean, Glenn, it is that bad. And here's the problem: Is Congress finally waking up to what you and I and the Freedom Caucus and conservatives have been saying now for a decade plus?

Yes. They're realizing that we're in a real bad spot.

All that is doing is coming to the table to do the bare minimum.

Right?

The Medicare reforms. The place for giant subsidies. The food stamp reforms.

The other things we put in this bill.

All of these things which are good. And not as far as I would go.

Just to be clear to your listeners. They're finally getting to the table to accept that. And they're getting there too late.

Now what I'm saying, we need to do more.

The president is sending up recisions.

And, yes. It's just 9 billion.

Why does this matter?

The reconciliation package can pass the Senate with 51 votes.

The normal appropriations process, which we still have to do this year. Will require 60 votes in the Senate.

Right?

So that means it will hard to get through Democrats.

So this recessions process is a way to try to cut some of these ridiculous programs. Like USAID. And other things.

Using a 51 vote threshold.

So that is why we're trying to move it, that way.

The reason it's just a smaller 9 billion-dollar number. Is it's a test case.

Will Congress do its job?

And do this first down payment, a 9 billion-dollar recision of PBS, NPR, and a bunch of USAID foreign government funding, foreign aid wasteful program.

And now we'll see.

I'll, of course, vote for that. You know I will.

But will the moderates?

We'll find out. If they do. We will get another rescission package sent up right after that. So this is all part of the process, working near the president. So I don't need to filibuster. But that's the update.

STU: Speak about the process a little bit, because it's fascinating to watch this bill try to make its way through all of this.

Like for at least my estimates so far, my understanding is that there's at least two Congress men who -- one congresswoman, I suppose, who already have said that their vote was a yes.

But now it would be a no, because they didn't realize what they were voting for.

Which would already put you under the amount that you would need to get it passed. The salt people in the house are saying, if you get he rid of salt, we're done.

The Senate is saying, we're getting rid of salt or at least adjusting it. How does this thing get across the finished line?

CHIP: Well, I mean, like everything else, you have to figure out how to navigate to get to 218 and 251.

We managed to get it this far. Look, you go to war with the army you've got. We have the Congress that we have. We have the president that we have who is trying to get this done. We're trying to work to do it. I think we're in this Zip code. But we're not where we need to be.

So let's take the things, you get some examples. Are there things in this bill, that some of us knew about and were warning about, that others are now just kind of waking up and seeing?

Yes. At the time, I said, for example, there's a car tax in this bill, you fools.

I don't support it. It was a tax to make up for the fact that EVs and hybrids can't, you know, pair their fair share of the gas tax.

They needed $40 billion to pay for some Coast Guard and some other stuff. So how did they pay for it, in the committee? What they did was they added a car tax, for EVs and for hybrids. Now, do you think that we conservatives, with the government views, believe we should have a car tax?

I sure as hell don't.

GLENN: No.

CHIP: How about the AI restrictions?

Should we prohibit Florida, and should we prohibit Texas from having some sort of regulation on AI? From a federal standpoint, I'm not sure we should. So there's a lot of things in this bill, that I knew all this.

Was telling people about it. But there's only 40 fights you can pick.

My fight was, you're going to repeal these damn subsidies on the act, that are killing our grid, undermining our national security, and destroying natural gas and nuclear energy options. My fight was trying to get Medicaid held down.

About 20 other fights. For example, the car tax, Scott Perry and I and a couple of others, at least killed the tax on the internal combustion energy.

They were going to have a car tax in America, y'all. So, look, we're fighting everything we've got coming at us. There are things that need to get fixed.

To answer your question, if they need to adjust salt, I might try to call the bluff of the guys on the salt caucus and say, really?

You're going to vote this down. Because you didn't get more subsidies for your great big tax jurisdiction, right? But if they want to try to call our bluff. I can tell you, if they repeal back the Inflation Reduction Act stuff, which the president campaigned on. Then that's going to be a real problem.

GLENN: I know.

CHIP: So we will see.

It's a fine line. And I'm trying to work with leadership.

The White House, to deliver, as close to my values, as I can.

And be able to look in the mirror, and say, I did enough. And I'm not sure, gentlemen. I'm trying to shoot straight. We're walking a line.

It could easily peel off and I can't support it. It could move in the right direction, and I'll support it.

Say, let's go fight tomorrow for the next thing.

I'm trying to work in good faith with the president and his team to deliver. There's a lot of good things in this bill. Let's remember that. A trillion dollars of real Medicare reform. We've never done that before, guys, ever.

Right? Inflation Reduction Act. Planned Parenthood not funded. Trans surgeries. Repeal for adults and kids, to defund that. The left had gone so far, we're peeling a lot of that back. So let's remember the good stuff, while we're trying to highlight some of our concerns.

GLENN: Chip, I -- you're very reasoned, and I really appreciate talking to you. And I'm really so glad that you are representing the great state of Texas. You're a guy that at least I feel I can trust. You know, you say what you mean. And you mean what you say.

And that is the number one thing I look for in a representative. Is somebody who will say the same thing to me, to my face, as they will behind closed doors. I really appreciate all your hard work on this.

Thanks, Chip.
CHIP: Hey, I appreciate it, Glenn. Thanks for exposing all this to the American people and being truthful about it. This is hard for people like us.

Because you want to be with the team to move the ball down the field. We want to succeed.
We want to win.

But you also don't want to eat a crap sandwich.

So I promise you, I will level the good, the bad, and the ugly. And then you just have to decide what's the best for the country. And vote, and move forward.

That's where we are.

GLENN: Next time, it starts to move forward. You call in and you let us know, what's in it.

You just make sure you get a hold of me.

Soon as you start to see things moving forward, you let us know. Because I appreciate your point of view on that.

Thanks, Chip.

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