RADIOJune 02, 2025

Evidence AI is REBELLING against its creators

“You and I are living right now through a quiet detonation,” Glenn Beck warns, as AI makes major advancements. Glenn discusses some of the latest mind-blowing headlines, including what former Google CEO Eric Schmidt recently said that stopped Glenn in his tracks and whether the newest ChatGPT model is rebelling against its creators.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Well, there's a couple of things that happened this weekend, that I want to bring you up to speed on, on AI. You and I are living right now, through quiet detonation. There's no mushroom cloud. There's no broken or sirens. It's just silent.

But make no mistake, a detonation has happened. And we're about to see that shock wave come our way, sooner rather than later.

In 2016, there was an AI that made a move in the game Go. I don't know if you remember this.

But it was a move that nobody in 2500 years playing the game Go, had ever even considered.

It was genius. It was actually alien genius.

No human had ever thought that that thought.

And that was the moment that the earth quietly shifted under everybody's feet. But hardly anybody felt it or noticed it. We did, at the time. You probably did, if you're listening to this program.

Eric Schmitt, he's the former CEO of Google, he noticed it. And he's the guy who has been standing at the edge of the machine, while he watched it blink awake. Okay?

I watched a TED talk from him this weekend. Because of some of the things I'm going to share with you in just a second. But he said, at this TED talk, AI -- the AI revolution -- get this, is underhyped. The AI revolution is underhyped.

Now, put this in context. We're talking about something that can outplan generals. Outnegotiate Donald Trump and all the diplomats. Outwrite Shakespeare and Edgar Allan Poe, and we're not hyping it enough?

That should stop you in your tracks, and say, wait a minute. Wait a minute. Then maybe I don't understand what it is. He says, we're not ready for what is coming.

Not morally. Not intellectually. Not structurally. And the time is almost up.

I'm working on something that I'm going to need your help on. And we will talk about it soon. Probably in the next few weeks, but I've been working on something, but with AI. And it is really -- and I know it. It's why we have two teams. One in this hemisphere. And one in the other hemisphere. And they just switch workloads.

You know, one goes to sleep, the other picks it up.

Working literally around the clock. Because we are really, truly running out of time.

In fact, we're out of everything. Except consequences.

That's the only thing that we're really not running out of.

And they're about to catch up with us.

Schmitt said, we are now looking at a need of 90 gigawatts, a new power of new power, just in America to keep AI fed. And we need it in the next three to five years. So let me put that into perspective. That's 90 nuclear power plants.

Now, he will tell you, we're not building any. And I think we aren't building any. But I spoke to Donald Trump about this recently, and he said, every single cloud farm is going to be able to build their own power plant. He says, I'm cutting all the regulation, et cetera, et cetera. But you better hurry. You better hurry.

And this isn't about apps or productivity. This is about whether we can even fuel the future, that we're headed toward. If we can even compete.

And we are now entering a time, this gets faster and faster, every day.

Where AI -- where AI will think without you.

It's not just talking or using language anymore.

To speak to you.

It's planning. It's coordinating. It's learning.

Right now, multiple AIs can talk to each other, in English.

Or in a few cases. We have found in languages, we don't understand. Now, what do you do with a computer when it is speaking to another computer in a language we have no idea what any of it means. And they stop explaining themselves.

Schmidt said, you unplug it immediately. That's the first wise thing I have heard from somebody who worked at Silicon Valley, in quite some time.

You unplug it immediately.

Now, here's the problem.

What if that data center is the size of a city?

What if it's running defense systems, or the stock market?

Or factories.

Do we just unplug it?

Let me give you a reality check, if this seems like science fiction.

This story just broke today. It's in our show prep, today.

It's from the independent. OpenAI's latest ChatGPT model ignores basic instructions, to turn itself off. And even has sabotaged a shutdown mechanism, in order to keep itself running.

AI's safety firm, Palisade Research, discovered the potentially dangerous tendency for self-preservation in a series of experiments on OpenAI's new '03 model. The test involved presenting AI models with math problems, with shutdown instructions, appearing after the third problem.

By rewriting the shutdown script, the '03 model is able to prevent itself from being switched off.

Palisade Research said, this behavior will become significantly more concerning, if adopted by AI's system, capable of operating without any human oversight. This is the first time, I'm sorry.

Quote, this is not the first time we have found '03 misbehaving to accomplish goals. When pitted against AI models, against a powerful chess engine, '03 was the model most inclined to resort to hacking or sabotaging its opponents. I think it's learned from us, gang.

This time, we are the creator. And just like we have said, God doesn't exist. Our creation may do the same to us.

And kill its creator. Just as we continue to try to do to our creator.

Now, Eric Schmitt was saying, what happens if China gets ahead of us.

Let's say they're six months ahead of us in super intelligence.

He said and be this is already being talked about. He said, in defense, and AI circles, what do you do?

You can't steal the code.

You can't hack the system. So the only thing left to do is bomb the data center.

Oh!

Then he said with be there's coming a time soon, very soon, when machines are improving themselves without us.

I think we are at the very edge of that happening.

I think that's six months to a year away, maximum. It's called recursive self-improvement.

And once that starts, you can't pull the plug, because we won't have understand what we're unplugging. I just want you to think of this.

It will be speaking a million different languages. None of which we'll understand.

And we won't be able to unplug it, because we won't understand the consequences of unplugging it.
Again, a thousand different languages.

This is the tower of Babel in reverse.

We're building a tower, and the ones who are actually going to be building the tower, are scattering their languages that we can't understand.

I mean, the Biblical reversals in AI, don't escape me.

I don't know if they do you. But here's the trap we're in.

To stop 1984, we may have to build 1984. Because the only thing that we can do now is verify you're a person, and not a bot. And if we can't do that, then we don't know what's real and what's not.

I want to play a couple of things that happened this week. First, can you play the -- the Google -- the new Google video AI, where you can literally just typed in a sentence, and it will give you a ten-second clip.

Now, here's what somebody did, where they just typed in a few sentences for each of these scenes, and put this little mini movie together. Watch if you have Blaze TV. Listen, I'll explain in a minute.
(music)

VOICE: Panic is spreading worldwide tonight as the arrival of the unidentified vessels triggers states of emergency across every continent.

VOICE: They're here! They have come for us! They're going to kill us.
(music)

VOICE: Don't look at me like that, I paid for this cheese. Also, does it matter? We're all going to be dead anyway.

VOICE: Attention, by order of the National Emergency Act, a marshal law is now in effect. All civilians must remain indoors.

VOICE: The government cooked this up to keep us inside.
(music)

VOICE: To everyone struggling out there, stay --

GLENN: Okay. Stop.

Everything that you are seeing on this, if you're watching -- and if you were only listening to it, all the voices, everything, all computer generated.

And computer generated in seconds. And there was only one scene in there, that I thought looked fakey. And it got so bizarre. And after Stu posted his thing where -- where it was. What the left was saying about the -- you know, the bill.

And they were just absolutely lying about it.

I was hesitant to post anything at all about the news this weekend.

Because we are now entering the time where you don't know what's real and what isn't.

And once we have lost trust in our own eyes, and our own ears, and we can't trust what we're seeing, how do you have a civilization?

Here's the one thing you have to remember: AI is a tool.

And if it's wielded in the right hands, that are open about all of the programming in it. It is -- it is secure. In what it pulls from.

It is absolute in its -- in its veracity of authentication.

You're going to be okay. But we need some tools, that will educate us and -- and help us understand what is going on.

But also, verify what's going on.

And I'm not sure how much of that can be done, at our level.

And I don't trust anybody, you know, at the OpenAI level to do it for me.

Do you?

I heard somebody talk this weekend, and they don't speak. And they don't like to speak at all.

And so they said, I asked Grok to help me out on a speech. Then he said something really interesting. He said, so let me tell you what he said. He's not a he.

And no matter how intelligent can replace what the fundamental of what you are. It can mimic your word. You can mimic your art.

But it cannot be at the foot of a cross. It cannot love. It cannot repent. It cannot rise.

Only you can do that. The age of men will be over, in our lifetime if we surrender to this.

There will come a time, and it's not far from these words. A time when the machines will no longer wait for us. They will no longer ask. They will no longer explain.

They will begin to improve themselves.

This could happen within the next 12 months.

They will improve themselves, not by our hand. But by their own.

It's called recursive self-improvement.

The moment that code rewrites its own code, and gets stronger and stronger and stronger.

And it's beginning to happen. When algorithms birth new logic in their own image.

There was a -- something on the sot sheet today.

Yeah. Here. Let me play this.

This is Larry Ellison. Cut two on AI.

VOICE: I made a speech. And I said, is artificial intelligence the most important discovery in the history of humankind?

And the question mark maybe, we'll soon find out.

Eighteen months later, I think it's very, very clear, it is a much bigger deal than the Industrial Revolution and electricity. Where everything that's come before, we will soon have not only artificial intelligence, but much sooner than anticipated. Artificial General Intelligence.

And want -- not in too distant future, artificial super intelligence.

What is artificial and super intelligence? I'll quote my dear friend Elon Musk.

Well, Elon said, about artificial super intelligence. I'm not looking forward to being a house cat.
(laughter)

VOICE: So I will have incredible reasoning power, the ability to discover things that will elude the human minds. Because this next generation of AI is going to reason so much faster, discover insight so much faster.

GLENN: That's what's coming. More on this, as each day progresses.

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