RADIOJuly 18, 2022

EXPLAINED: No, Thomas Jefferson did NOT support slavery

Monticello has gone full WOKE. According to the New York Post, visitors to Thomas Jefferson's former home now learn more about the ‘horrors of slavery’ than the Founding Father himself. In fact, the monument’s gift shop apparently sells several books written by Critical Race Theorists and just ONE Jefferson biography. But if the far-left successfully can change U.S. history — like they’ve been trying SO hard to do — we’ll never survive as a nation, Glenn says. We MUST preserve our history, so in this clip, Glenn clears the third president's name. Listen for the FACTS that prove Thomas Jefferson did NOT support slavery…

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

VOICE: We are five days away, from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.

VOICE: And Barack knows that we are going to have to make sacrifices. We are going to have to change our conversation. We're going to have to change our traditions, our history. We're going to have to move into a different place.

GLENN: Wow. How alarming is that, when we first heard it. We didn't know exactly what she meant. Other than, transformation. Wait. I don't want to change our history.

But look at how well-coordinated everything has done. They did change our history. They're still changing our history. They're still changing our traditions.

It's remarkable how well-planned this was. Well, according to the New York Post, grievance has become the predominant theme at Monticello. They say from the ticket booth to the visitor's center, which is decorated with contemporary painting of Jefferson's weeping slaves, to its final gift shop display, it's no longer telling the story of Thomas Jefferson. In addition to the ticket booth, and the gift shop, which features works by Critical Race theorist, Ibram X. Kendi and Ta-Nehisi Coates. But only one biography about Jefferson himself. The estate reportedly discusses the Native Americans who lived on the land before Jefferson purchased it. It also offers an in-depth look at Sally Hemings, Jefferson's mistress.

We -- we do not know if Sally Hemings was a mistress or not. There was a book that came out in the '90s, that said it was true. It was retracted within two weeks. But nobody ever covered that.

There is evidence in newspaper coverage at the time. As a smear on Thomas Jefferson. That his brother was making it with Sally Hemings. So any DNA that says, Jefferson. Yeah, it might be Tom. But it might be his brother. And that's what they were saying at the time. My God. We are not going to survive unless we preserve our history.

Jefferson's mistress, who allegedly bore him six children. Makes repeated reference to the enslaved people who once lived and worked at Monticello, represents a nuanced version of Jefferson and focuses little on his accomplishments.

Jeffrey Tucker, the founder of the Libertarian Brownstone Institute, recently took a group of tour, to Monticello, noted a surly and dismissive tone from his tour guide. Someone asked if Jefferson had built a machine in the house. And the guide said, no. He never really built anything. He was a tinkerer. He was a tinkerer? Are you kidding me?

I mean, he designed Monticello. That's his design. The clock is his design. Oh, my gosh. I can't -- I can't take it. He also, you know, founded the university of Virginia. And the Declaration of Independence. However -- however, in a video posted on the Monticello Facebook page, tour guide Kyle Chattington -- Chattelton, oh, my gosh. Is that a pretentious name?

Hi, yes. I'm Kyle Chattelton, III. He claims, how is it that Jefferson wrote that all men are created equal, and yet also held people as slaves?

It's one of the most common questions that visitors ask. I would like to know their answer. Stu, do you know the answer?

STU: I don't think that I do, Glenn. I don't think that I do.
(laughter)

GLENN: Oh, my gosh. Oh. Just -- if you don't know the answer, would you Google first draft of the Declaration of Independence?

STU: First draft of the declaration --

GLENN: It is in his own handwriting. And he capitalizes a couple of words.

STU: Hmm.

GLENN: He was vehemently opposed to slavery. He tried his whole life to stop it.

Why -- why did he write all men are created equal and he didn't realize slaves were men?

On the third page of the Declaration of Independence, that he wrote, and two states stopped, it says, the king is having men sold on the open market.

Hello.

STU: But the Christian king, of Great Britain, was -- is, by the way, capitalized in there. To show everybody. In a mocking tone. That he wasn't acting all that Christian. When he was saying, he wanted people to be owned. And used for the purposes of the crown. I mean, you know, this is in the -- of course, the -- the section, in which they're just lighting up Great Britain, and the king. And saying, hey. These are all the terrible things he they have done. And why we have to do this. Why we have to declare independence in the first place. Here's our list of grievances.

The longest one, it's the most prominent one.

GLENN: It's half a page.

STU: It's half a page. It goes on and on and on and on. Just complaining about slavery. How bad it is. And how it should stop immediately.

GLENN: And how many times the -- and how many times the king had thwarted them.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: In trying to stop it. That's why Thomas Jefferson had slaves. But was against slavery. It's not because he was an American sphinx, that we just can't figure out.

No. He fought in Virginia, to change the laws. He could not sell his slaves, or release them upon his death. Because he was in debt.

And you couldn't free slaves, if you were in debt. And he was millions in debt, on his death. So he -- the record is clear! Oh, my gosh.

I can't -- oh.

STU: You haven't even inherited -- this is another important point. This was inherited.

GLENN: Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. But he was making wild, passionate love to Sally Hemings. Or his brother was.

Here's a story, it comes out of Breitbart. Woke churches across the country have celebrated abortion, and even gone as far as labeling the pro-life movement, a quote, demonic agenda.

Now, that's quite a statement. We now have good being called evil. And evil being called good. By churches. Now, these are liberal churches.

But the churches are now calling the lack of abortions, forced childbirth. Hmm. Hmm.

Okay. Okay. So wait. Forced childbirth. So then you would admit, that it is a child. Right?

I'm just trying to figure out, how you're -- another sign of the times. Ted Cruz went on a rampage yesterday, talking about Clarence Thomas, and what's happening to Clarence Thomas and his wife. There is a -- a photo, that has been on social media. Of a protester sign that reads, Ginni Thomas is a 21st century slave owner. Ginni, who happens to be a friend of mine, is the wife of Clarence Thomas. You are not only denigrating her, by calling her a slave owner, you are also saying, that Clarence Thomas, one of the most clear-minded judges, we have had, is -- is somehow enslaved by this white woman?

I mean, I thought it was bad, when they said that he was an Uncle Tom for marrying a white woman. Now he's a slave being held in slavery by his wife. This is despicable.

The -- the Justice Department is doing nothing -- nothing to stop it. They'll label you a terrorist, but they'll do nothing to the people who are actually offering a bounty if you will disclose where any of these conservative justices are.

White House isn't say anything about it. Justice Department is doing nothing about it.

Can you imagine -- can you imagine -- I don't even need to finish that sentence. Let me switch to something else here.

Something that makes you happy. Something that makes me happy. Starbucks has dropped its recently introduced chicken maple butter and egg sandwich from its menu. Because people complain of experiencing symptoms of illness, including diarrhea after consuming the product. And it's -- it's -- it's -- apparently, it's symptoms that customers and baristas claim to have experienced after eating the sandwich, included diarrhea, vomiting, and stomach pain. The worst diarrhea of my life. I've been living in my bathroom for two days now, one user complained on TikTok. Another user said that they contracted campylobacter, I guess? An infection that can be contracted after eating raw poultry items.

They -- they said, the Seattle-based Starbucks -- and I wish them all the best. They said, you know, the sandwich, in retrospect, just doesn't live up to our high quality standards. No? No? Uh-uh. No. Uh-uh.

I don't think your high quality standards are quite so high, or as high as you think they are, if, you know, putting people into the toilet for two days is, you know, maybe we should pull this sandwich. I'm just saying. I'm just saying.

But makes me want to run out and get one. And that makes me so happy.

For the giant Seattle-based corporation. Starbucks. All my best. Back in just a second.

Deborah wrote in about her experience with Relief Factor. She said, my wonderful husband ordered Relief Factor for me. When I was feeling pretty bad. I have rheumatoid arthritis. And Relief Factor helps me tremendously. I noticed around the second week, things began to get better. I have to admit, I was skeptical before. Now I swear by it. Thanks. Thank you. Thank you. All the best, Deborah. Deborah, thank you for writing in and giving Relief Factor a try. Sounds like you had the same experience I had. I didn't think it would work either. Try their three-week Quick Start. Yes. It will cost you 19.95. But if it's not working for you in three weeks, stop. Because it probably will not work for you. 70 percent of the people who try the three-week Quick Start go on to order it month after month. Because they're getting relief. A dollar a day, it's a trial pack. Hundreds of thousands of people have ordered Relief Factor, and a lot. Seventy percent go on to order and take every single day. That says everything. Doesn't it?

ReliefFactor.com. 800-4-Relief. 800-4-Relief. 19.95. Three-week Quick Start, developed for you. ReliefFactor.com, or call 800-4-Relief. Relief Factor. Feel the difference.
(OUT AT 10:48AM)

GLENN: Oh, yeah, dog. Welcome to the Glenn Beck Program.

So now we've gone down a rabbit hole. I brought up Sally Hemings. And now Stu is on a Sally Hemings rabbit hole.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: And what have you found?

STU: Well, Monticello said. They think it's likely that he fathered, maybe one, maybe more than one of these children. And I was thinking to myself. Did Jefferson do that? What's like the real backing on this? So I went into one of the big scholar's commissioned reports that Thomas Jefferson Heritage Organization. And they -- they summarize it this way. This is what their report was, after saying it was 300 pages long. In the end, after roughly one year of examining the issues, we find the question of whether Thomas Jefferson fathered one or more children by his slave Sally Hemings, to be one about which honorable people can and do disagree.

However, it is our unanimous view, that the allegation is by no means proven. And we find it regrettable that public confusion about the 1998 DNA testing and other evidence has misled many people into believing the issue was closed. With the exception of one member, whose views were set forth below. Our individual conclusions range from serious skepticism about the charge, to the conviction that it is almost certainly untrue. It goes through. All the scholars that were related to this, backed that opinion, with the exception of one.

GLENN: Wow!

STU: And this is what the -- the dissent wrote. With the report -- with the -- the report of the majority, I'm in general agreement. I dissent only in believing it's somewhat more likely than not. That Thomas Jefferson was the father of Eston Hemings. One of the children.

Goes on to say, it also could have been -- others. It says, this suggests the possibility that Thomas Jefferson fathered all of her known children. But it does not prove that he fathered even one.

What it does establish is a strong probability, that her pregnancies during the period, when she appears to have resided at Monticello, were occasioned by (inaudible) there. So there are evidences, he seems to be there, at the same time she got pregnant.

GLENN: Do they mention at all -- do they mention at all, the smear on him in I think it was like, 1801, they started smearing him as president. And in the campaign. And they -- the smear was, his brother slept with slaves.

STU: Yes. No. It does.

It goes into the fact that it could be any of -- here, let's see. It is a fact, notwithstanding a mistake to jump to the conclusion that Jefferson must have been the father of Sally Hemings' children for there were other events that normally coincided with his visits there.

Among these, one is pertinent to this inquiry. The presence of visitors whose offspring are tolerably likely to have looked like Thomas Jefferson. Visitors such as Thomas Jefferson's younger brother, Randolph. Randolph's four or five sons. And Peter and Samuel Carr, sons of his sister. Goes through -- and it's 300 pages. It breaks down all of these things in incredible detail. But, I mean, you look at the summary, they're either very skeptical of it. Or completely disregarded with the exception of one guy, who is from Hillsdale, by the way. Not some crazy, liberal guy.

But said, look, I don't think -- I don't -- I think it's more likely than not, that one of the children was.

But that's not an open-and-shut case, by any means, and there's a lot of other possibilities there, which is interesting. That's not how the media covers that at all.

GLENN: And this is not being taught at Monticello. What's being taught at Monticello is that he fathered Sally Hemings children. There's the evidence. How does Monticello get away with it? Huge, liberal donations.

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