RADIOMarch 27, 2023

EXPLAINED: How the Fed’s FedNow program WILL end in a CBDC

The Federal Reserve’s new service for banks, called FedNow, promises increased flexibility, faster transactions, and instant payments with one, small cost: The potential END to your financial freedom. In this clip, Glenn is joined by Justin Haskins, co-author of their new book, ‘Dark Future.’ Haskins explains how — despite what the Federal Reserve may say — this new service is NOT an alternative to a Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC)…rather, it’s a giant stepping stone toward it. Watch Glenn tackle this topic further in his upcoming Glenn TV Wednesday Night Special, airing on YouTube and BlazeTV.com on March 29th.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Justin Haskins is with us. Justin is the -- he's with the socialism research center, at the Heartland Institute, where he is the director. He has been working tirelessly on stopping socialism.

He is also -- he was one of our main contributors to our Arguing With Socialists book.

He is also my coauthor of the book, The Great Reset. And our fourth coming book. We're all going to die.

I'm not sure exactly -- what did we name it, Justin?

That was my working title for quite some time.

JUSTIN: Are we telling people? Is this the first time?

GLENN: I don't know. Can we?

Check Amazon, see if it's up for sale.
If it's up for sale, we'll announce it. It's supposed to be in the next few days.

JUSTIN: The name of the book.

GLENN: Don't say it. Don't say it.

So, Justin, you wrote to me something kind of disturbing.

Last hour, I played these happy little commercials from the Federal Reserve about the Fed Now.

It's a new service for all of the banks, which will -- which will make the transfer of funds, you know, whether you're out shopping or you're a business owner, or you're doing bank-to-bank transactions.

You just run everything through the Federal Reserve, and it will happen fast. And I thought --

JUSTIN: Yeah. Isn't that exciting?

GLENN: Very exciting. Now, they're claiming that this is the alternative to a CBDC, which is a Central Bank Digital Currency.

It doesn't really sound so much like an alternative, as much as, I don't know, a system to run that on.

JUSTIN: Yeah. Basically, this is -- this is like Jason Buttrill, your head researcher. Because he and I are now best friends. We exchange emails all the time.

He came up with this great analogy.

This is like the drug dealer, who is new on the block. And he will not just start injecting people with heroin. That's not how you sell lots of drugs. That's not how you do it.

First, you get them hooked.

You just give them a little taste. And then after they get a little taste, now they're hooked. Then you can start really pushing the hard stuff. That's what this is all about.

The Federal Reserve is basically a drug pusher. Okay?

And this is the start of it.

Normally, regular folks like you and me, and people in the audience, we don't interact with the fed. We're not used to that.

We don't like the fed.

We don't trust them very much. And so what they want to say is, just have a little taste. You'll see. It will be great.

Just have a little taste. This is a steppingstone to a CBDC.

This is our first interaction to using the fed directly.

So that we can become more comfortable with it. So it's normalized. And then after this, you'll get a central bank digital currency.

We already know this, because there's a billion government reports talking about how they'll design it, what it will look like.

Why people should use it.

What the principles should be, behind it. All of that kind of stuff.

So we know a CBDC is coming. This is just the first step in that process, to try to normalize people interacting directly with the fed in this sort of high-tech instant transfer payment portal.

GLENN: So we've been talking about the uniform commercial code, which is complicated. And it's -- it's usually nothing anyone should ever have to think about. However, they have included central bank digital currency as the new definition of money.

But money makes us think of money, that you can take from the bank. That you own it. You get paid. You get to do what you want with it.

But central bank digital currency, is not really money. Correct?

JUSTIN: Yeah. What's happening in more than 20 states across the country right now, and it's going to happen in all 50 states eventually. Is lawmakers are looking at updating the Uniform Commercial Code so that a foundation is being laid for a future central bank digital currency.

And not just any kind of central bank digital currency, but a central bank digital currency that is programmable, trackable. That you won't have any privacy with the things that you're doing with the CBDC, that it can be controlled and manipulated. This kind of thing is being manipulated into the code. They don't use the world central bank digital currency. But they outline it, in such a way so that that has to be what they're talking about. So it's not creating the CBDC. That's not what this is aiming to do. It's just laying the foundation to make it easier to use it in certain kinds of commercial transactions.

GLENN: So people know, and this is what you really have to understand. This is not like Bitcoin.

Bitcoin is such a danger, because you get to do with it, what you want to do with it.

And the Federal Reserve is not aware of anything, and can't do anything.

You have the ultimate power with your money. The opposite is true with the fed coin, that they will be introducing. And this is what makes it so dangerous. Not just the tracking.

They're not -- they will not just know absolutely everything that you spend. But Justin said a key word that most people don't really understand. It's programmable. Meaning, it is programmable for the individual. So, in other words, if the government decides that they're going to -- you know, we need to get -- we need to cut down on fat, fat, fatties. Then my digital coin, will not allow me to buy fatty foods. I wouldn't be able to go to McDonald's. I'm using this as an example. There's not anything in the works to do this.

Except, this is what programmable means. They can program it, so if they say, you know what, nobody is going to work. You're not an essential employee.

Your coin will not buy gas.

So you can go to -- try to fill up. But when you put your digital card in the fed, it will say denied. And you won't have any way, other than that card, to be able to buy what you need. It's absolute control of your life.

JUSTIN: Yes. That is exactly right.

And there actually have been things. Statements that have been made by the Biden administration itself. Where it is said, as part of its reports, studying CBDCs and the benefits of it. And how it would be designed.

If they were to make a CBDC, even though they've haven't committed to doing that exactly. They have done all of the groundwork for it.

They've said flatout, that a CBDC needs to account for climate change. It needs to have financial inclusion built into it.

It needs to have equity built into it.

It needs to have concerns about pollution, built into it. They have worked with hundreds of stakeholders. And we all know what that means. Nonprofit groups. And labor organizations and others.

GLENN: Community activists.

JUSTIN: To help design the CBDC. So why are they doing all of that? Because it is going to be programmed, so that you can use it in certain ways, so that it can be prohibited in other ways.

And it can change on a dime. See, that's the other important thing.

It's not -- when it's programmable, they can change the rules whenever they want. It's not as though, they set the rules at the beginning, and that's the rules forever.

They can change the rules as they go. That's the threat of a programmable currency. So it's a huge threat to liberty.

GLENN: And all they will concentrate on is the one fact, and mark my words, this is the way it's going to happen.

We'll have a banking collapse.

Because there's a banking collapse, that will cause the dollar to skyrocket in inflation, possibly hyperinflation. Because you won't be able to have a supply chain anymore.

So many people will be unemployed. There's so much money awash, that if you want to buy something, well, you have 100 bucks?

Yeah. I'll buy that for $100. And it might be something that was worth $4 before the collapse.

And people will pay it. Hyperinflation will go crazy.

The fed will say, look, we have to stop it. Inflation is too much.

We will give you digital currency. It's already in a bank with your name.

All you have to do is sign in, and it will give you the money. And that is what will change inflation.

How do we know about that? Because we wrote about it, in a arguing -- I believe it was in Arguing with Socialists. A chapter we almost didn't put in about Modern Monetary theory. And Modern Monetary theory, is what we're operating on.

We can spend as much money as we want, don't worry about inflation. If they have digital control of everyone's spending.

JUSTIN: Right. Exactly right. We talked about it both in Arguing with Socialists and The Great Reset.

It's a huge part of both socialist plans and Great Reset's elites plans. And those are not necessarily the same group. But there's no doubt about it, that that's the goal.

So why are there 20-some-odd states in the United States right now? Many of them are red states. Texas, Kentucky, Arizona, Oklahoma, North Dakota, Missouri, Montana, Arkansas, et cetera.

Why are they all doing whatever they possibly can, on the UCC code, updating it to make it at least a little bit easier for a CBDC to be utilized in the future. When a CBDC doesn't even exist yet.

Why would they be doing that? That is a really, really important question. But it's much worse than everything we've said so far.

And that's -- having worked with these lawmakers across the country. We have started to discover things in the UCC.

In the commercial code, that are incredibly, incredibly disturbing. Things that most of us just didn't realize were true. And if CBDC's happen, we're in for a world of hurt, that we didn't see coming.

And the reason for that, is under commercial code. When you take money, like if you have cash right now, under the current code. And you go to the bank, and you put money into the bank.

That money is no longer your money. That money is actually now owned by the bank.

GLENN: Hang on just a second.

This is why you -- and this changed. Part of this changed in 2008. You are the lender of last resort, right?

You are the last person in line, to get money, if you have deposited into the bank. Because the bank, when you give them that money, and deposit it. They are then taking that money.

They don't have to ask for permission to loan it out.

They take that money as theirs. And they loan it out.

So what happens to your money?

Well, you don't have money. You -- what you have is a number in the bank, that the bank can now give back to you, or if they go belly-up? Well, then, you lose your money because it wasn't yours anyway. Correct?

JUSTIN: Yes. It's not your money. It's owned by the bank now.

Now, you can go to the bank and say, I want my money back. And then they hand you the money in cash, and you can walk out the door. And that money is yours.

You own that money. But here's the thing about a central bank digital currency: And this is what we're beginning to learn.

How the commercial code deals with that. When you -- you can't put Central Bank Digital Dollars, okay? Digital fed coin. You can't put that in your pocket, and walk out the door. Can you?

It has to be somewhere. It can't be in your actual possession. And because of that --

GLENN: Well, wait. Bitcoin, you can put on a thumb drive. And so you can walk away with it. But digital currency, central bank, no.

JUSTIN: Yes. Correct. They're not going to design it so you can put it into a hard drive or something like that.

But even if -- even if they did, the uniform -- that's why they're updating the uniform commercial code the way they are.

They're putting rules into place, so that you could use a CBDC, even if it is possible to download it on to a hard drive or something like that.

But the layers behind the uniform commercial code, acknowledge in their various meetings and comments and other things, that it's highly unlikely that a CBDC would ever be designed in that way.

It's not -- you will have to put it into some kind of account. So what does that mean?

What it means in effect is that all of the money. All of the CBDC money that exists in society. Will be owned by whoever owns the account.

Which means the fed, or the bank. Or whoever is designated by the Federal Reserve Bank to operate that system.

But you, the individual person, will not own the money.

The money will belong to someone else. It will not belong to you. You will not own it. Under the commercial code, as it is written right now.

Forget about what they're advising it to. Under right now, you would not own any money.

It would all belong to someone else. So forget about whether it's programmable from a design perspective. In practice, it will not be your money anyway.

And so how can you not think of that famous article for the World Economic Forum, we've talked about a thousand times.

In the future, you will own nothing.

And you will have no privacy. Well, it seems like that's what the purpose of this is. So it is not enough to simply kill the UCC bill updates that we're talking about all across the country. That is essential. But we need to do more than that. We need to rewrite that code so that CBDCs cannot be used in a variety of other contexts as well.

GLENN: All right. Stand by. Stand by.

I think that we have to -- we have to really, truly get down to a basic line here, that you have to do in your own state.

And I'm not sure. And I want to talk to Justin. That the UCC code is enough.

And we'll talk about it here, in just 60 seconds.

You know, some people have a hard time falling asleep. I have a hard time falling asleep.

And what? Three times in the last seven days probably. I took Relief Factor sleep. It works wonders for me.

When you -- when you don't get your sleep, you fall asleep in meetings.

Oh, that's really good. When you don't get your sleep, you're not performing at your best. Relief Factor sleep is 100 percent drug-free. It's a blend of natural ingredients.

And it promotes healthy sleep by reducing anxiety and distress and improving mood. Promoting relaxation. My wife and I, we were in Costco yesterday, and we were loading up on, you know, just different medicines and things like that.

And I said, honey, because Rafe used to take melatonin. I said, you want to get some extra melatonin? She said, no, it doesn't work.

Relief Sleep is much better. And it's true. If it doesn't work for you, this is the same kind of thing as melatonin, except it's better, and it's all 100 percent natural ingredients.

So unleash the power of great sleep by calling 800-4-Relief. 800-4-Relief. Do it now. Or go to relieffactor.com.

Read all about it. Try it. It's really remarkable. And you are left refreshed. You don't feel it in your system at all. Dream big, sleep tight. Relief Factor sleep at ReliefFactor.com. Ten-second station ID.
(music)

GLENN: All right. Justin, we have -- we have been talking about the UCC code. And we've been telling people not to allow it to pass. Now you've been working with legislatures, all over the country. And these legislators are telling you, no. There's much more to the code. We have to change it.

Would it be better just to go for states passing law, that CBDCs can't be used for commerce?

JUSTIN: So it's a really complicated question because there are all sorts of issues related to the Constitution and who has the authority to regulate money.

And whether or not a state can even pass a law, that outright rejects the use of -- of an established form of money, at the federal level.

Because it's a federal responsibility, to coin money.

Of course, there are people who say, well, yeah. But coining money means physical money, not digital money.

And so maybe they are allowed to do it. And so I think there are a lot of open questions about that, that we don't necessarily know.

I think that the most effective thing that legislators can do.

And legislators actually do not know a lot of the things I've told you today. I've gotten that from a lot of UCC lawyers, actually.

But what they need to do. They need to focus first, in my opinion.

I think Americans would be much better off, if lawmakers killed the UCC bills. Okay?

If they killed the UCC bills to update them right now, they would be much better off.

But then they also need to update the UCC and all other state laws that they can possibly find, in ways, that would make it so that a central bank digital currency, is undermined in the state, in financial transactions.

For example, can you use a CBDC? A programmable digital currency, when you're using -- for collateral and a loan, let's say.

Okay?

State laws dictate some of that, and they can undermine that.

They can do things like that, to undermine the use of a CBDC, and I think that's what they have to do.

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