RADIOJuly 04, 2024

Are Attacks Against Free Speech Meant to Protect a New "Religion"?

An op-ed titled “The First Amendment Is Out of Control” was recently published in the New York Times. In it, law professor Tim Wu argues that free speech arguments – especially for online speech – are now used to protect corporate interests and harm everyday citizens. While Glenn admits that he makes a persuasive argument, he lays out another take on what free speech STILL means: “You can speak your mind without fear of censorship or persecution.” Is that the version of free speech that our government and media are currently standing up for? Or are they instead trying to censor anyone who speaks out against their new “religion”?

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: You know, I talked to you a little bit about the story in the New York Times yesterday. The First Amendment is out of control.

Tomorrow is Independence Day. And we should all review what freedom of speech is really meant for, and what it is. Now, it was written by a guy named would. He's a law professor at Columbia. (?) and he writes about tech and everything else.

And he says, First Amendment was a tool that helped the underdog. But sometime in this century, the judiciary lost the plot. Judges have transmuted a constitutional provision meant to protect the unpopular opinion, into an all-purpose tool of legislative nullification, that now mostly protects corporate interests. So he's making the case, that we've turned it upside down.

And I have to tell you, he makes a persuasive case here.

But he is wrong in the end. Let me just skip to this.

He's talking about regulation of the internet. Such regulation is not always perfect to be sure. But it represents a legitimate tool which democratic governments can stand up to private power. The next phase (?) the regulation of artificial intelligence.

I fear the First Amendment will be extended to the -- to protect machine speech. At considerable human cost. I 100 percent agree with that.

It's something I have been warning about, for about three decades. In our era, the power of private actors has grown to rival that of nation states.

True again. Most powerful are the big tech platforms. True again.

Which in their cocoon-liken compassing of humanity has grown to (?) in ways that would make totalitarian states jealous.

Correct again. In a democracy, no. Republic. The people ought to have a right to react and control such private power. As long as it does not trample on the rights of the individual.

Again, correct!

But thanks to the Supreme Court, the First Amendment has become a barrier to the government's ability to do that.

Free speech rights have been hijacked to suppress the sovereignty of humans. In favor of the power and companies. And machines.

Okay.

So wait.

But, no. There's a the difference between individuals, and the government.

And regulations, and suggestions. You want to regulate. Okay. Regulate.

And let's have that not going G through the administrative state.

Let's have that go (?) through Congress.

Let's have that debate. A serious debate about it.

We can do that. And I think the -- the right of the individual, is what will win in that. If we don't have some closed door, you know, Google writing the bill. But actual debate, the way Congress is supposed to work.

Then I think, free speech will win. Because it's a strong argument. For the people. But what the Supreme Court was talking about, was, well, now, wait a minute.

I think the government, you know -- maybe -- maybe we send it down to the lower court. And have them reexamine this.

Because should the government be able to just say, hey.

You really need to -- you need to silence these people P

No. The government (?) should never have that power. Ever. Ever. Ever.

Freedom of speech is the cornerstone. It is why it is the first amendment.

Freedom of speech. Freedom of the press.

The way that the people can stand up against the government.

They can stand up against the government. They can question our government.

They can demand answers from our government. They have a press that should be completely separate from the government. To stand guard, against the government.

Remember, this whole document was made to stop a government from becoming tyrannical.

So if you're afraid of, you know, Trump or Biden becoming a tyrant, your answer, the only answer should be, return to the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights.

The freedom of speech thing, is so important. Again, it was the first.

But what it means is, you can speak your mind, without fear of censorship or persecution.

Now, that doesn't make you popular.

But it does mean that the government and those powerful institutions can do nothing against you, to stop you.

Would you like it if a church all of a sudden was in charge, and said

You can't say these things?

I mean, how many people on the left believe in burning the flag?

You have a right to do that.

Okay.

So why did the kid -- oh, gosh. Where was it? Never

In Oregon. The kid that burned rubber on the pride flag that was painted on the road.

He was just charged with a felony!

A felony!

What is that? Other than, a religion?

Or a government saying, this is what we stand for, and you will not tarnish it!

Excuse me?

I don't want that happening through a church. I don't want that happening through the government.

I don't -- I would like people to self-regulate. But things like peeling out on the pride flag. That happens sometimes, not because of homophobia. Sometimes it is homophobia.

Other times, it is just -- you know what, I'm a rebel. You are telling me, and jamming this down my throat.

No!

And it's their only way for freedom of speech. That's the case that is made for burning down the flag.

Why is it different on the pride flag?

See, we have a -- if we didn't have freedom of speech. We wouldn't understand anything.

Because the things that were said at some point or another, that have made progress, and pushed us into new areas. Have always seemed crazy. Or dangerous.

But they move us forward. Well, I'm not talking about speech that moves us forward, makes progress. I mean the speech that's dangerous.

Oh, really? Because that's what every authoritarian and theocratic (?) dictator always says. The problem is: Who is in charge of judging what's dangerous and not?

The church? The government? Academia? Some other group or organization that would have the power to silence people?

Remember, the only speech that needs protecting is the speech that either the majority doesn't like, or power doesn't like.

You know, the world was flat for a very long time.

And for centuries, that was the accepted view.

And challenging it seemed like (?) and later during the age of exploration.

Ferdinand Magellan. And Christopher Columbus. Dared to propose or demonstrate otherwise.

It was their courage to speak out and explore beyond the known boundaries. That led to an understanding of what the earth really was.

Now, the power didn't want it.

The church didn't want that.

The church would prosecute and persecute anybody.

You know how they got King Ferdinand to do it?

Gold.

I'm telling you, there's lots of gold. What happens if he's wrong. He falls off the edge of the earth. Big deal.

The idea that the sun revolves around the earth. Or is it the earth revolves around the sun. That faced significant resistance.

Copernicus and Galileo.

Pioneers, revolutionary idea, went against the power of the time.

In 1633, the Catholic Church, which was the power, tried Galileo, during the inquisition. And forced to -- forced him to recant under threat of torture.

Okay. Who is deciding what free speech is good? What's progress? What's not?

It's easy to see them in reverse. You know what Socrates was killed for? He was killed bit government. He went through a fair trial.

(?) you know what he was killed for? Because he was corrupting the youth of Athens.

Because he encouraged questioning the established norms and beliefs.

Anybody who ever says, don't -- you can't question that. Don't question that.

You should run from. Socrates was corrupting the youth, because he said, question everything. Jeer Don zero Bruno, I think was his name. (?) he's the guy who said there's infinite suns and innet worlds. He was burned at the stake, in the inquisition of 1600.

Martin Luther, as well as Martin Luther King. How about Thomas Edison and Nikola Tesla? The war of currents. This was all about power, literally, and figuratively.

Power and money.

Here's Thomas Edison, who is using the system, to stifle invasion.

Edison wants (?) direct current. Because he was losing that battle, because it didn't make sense and it wasn't working.

He had to discredit Tesla.

And he did it through smear campaigns. And propaganda.

He had public demonstrations where he got this sick doctor to go, and electrocute animals, using Tesla's alternating current.

He would take down horses, dogs, whatever you have. (?) Tesla wants to put in your house.

Thank God we weren't afraid of the scare tactics. Because that's what we all have in our house today.

Or at least we will for a while, until they believe up with something even better. That you're not allowed to question.

If you can't challenge prevailing wisdom, if you can't propose a new idea, if you can't say, wait a minute. This doesn't make any sense, everything stops.

Progress depends on the free exchange of ideas. And if you get rid of your opposition, life falls apart. Even the Bible says, opposition in all things. You have to have the metal and the flint. It's when they rub together, when they strike against each other, that's when a spark is made. And that's when things change.

This is what we're arguing about right now. It should show you the health of America.

I mean, when you have a cold, the doctor might talk to you about, okay. I want you to take this, and this, and this. And just get some bed rest.

But when you have a cold, and you have cancer, the doctor is not talking about the cold. Okay?

He's talking about cancer.

Our cancer is so deep, we're down to the fundamentals. We're down to. Okay.

You can't lose freedom of speech.

You can't lose your -- your protection against your own civil rights. We're down to the big ones.

That's how sick this body is.

Meanwhile, they want you to yell and scream about Biden or Trump.

Or whatever. It's the fundamental rights, that are first expressed in our Declaration of Independence.

Something that was signed and agreed upon on July 2nd. Finally announced to the American people, on July 4th.

That we should be concentrating on.

I urge you, this Independence Day, tomorrow, and I know your family will roll their eyes and go, Dad. Please. At least mine do all the time.

Dad, please.

Read the Declaration of Independence. Tomorrow.

Read it. Understand it. Work through it with your kids.

Work through it with yourself. It's still alive today.

Exposed: The bizarre truth behind the Minnesota lawmaker murders

Was the man who allegedly killed a Minnesota lawmaker and her husband and wounded another couple a Republican or Democrat? Did he support Trump, as some reports claim? Blaze News investigative reporter Joseph Hanneman joins Glenn Beck to reveal just how weird and unusual this story is: “The more we learn about him, the less this entire thing makes sense.”

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Joe, welcome to the program. How are you?

JOE: Thanks for having me, Glenn.

GLENN: You bet. It's great to have you. You used to work for the Epic Times. And you guys, I think you tear it up over there.

Really, some good reporting over there. You also cowrote and appeared in three January 6 documentaries.

And you told the real story there.

And you also work for the Wisconsin state journal, and the Chicago Tribune. So it's nice to have you on board for TheBlaze.

Let me ask you, Joe. What do you find creepy or suspicious about this guy. This guy that nobody is paying attention to.

That just tried to kill a bunch of people.

And, you know, did along with the No Kings movement.

JOE: Well, the more we learn about him, the less this entire thing makes sense.

Maybe -- he has a very unusual backstory.

He's worked a lot in the food industry. Companies like Del Monte. And Berger. In production.

Safety. Supervising.

You know, the plants, and keeping everything clean and safe.

He's probably moved around the country, at least a dozen times, in the past 20 years, with his jobs.

But he also has a background as a preacher, which we're just finding out, a little bit more about that.

I have a story about that. That he has traveled, around the world.

And at least in part, as a preacher. A Christian preacher, who -- who had studied at a -- at an institute there, in Dallas.

And he has been to Africa.

He's talking about going to the Middle East, and in the West Bank. And Gaza.

You know, talked about going there, to be basically a missionary to radical Islamists. And to tell them, as he put on one of his websites, that violence isn't the answer.

Now, that's an interesting -- interesting thing for -- for him to say.

I talked to Robert Spencer from jihad watch.

And he said, if he actually did that, he's fortunate to be alive.

Because typically, if you proselytize.

That's a death tense in Islam.

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: So he said, if he actually did that, you know, he would have been killed or taken hostage.

Unless they saw it, as he put it. They saw him as a fool.

And as kind of a break, and left him alone.

But he's also preached in the democratic republic of the Congo, several times.

In -- in an evangelical Christian church this.

And we've come across some very interesting video of him, talking about his -- his -- his story, to Christianity.

But he was so excited about talking about Christ, he put his arms out, almost like a bird. Flying around the stage.

Saying, you know, what Jesus has done for me.

And woo-hoo!

It's -- it's --

GLENN: Why -- I mean, we have the Del Monte guy going around, then preaching around the world.

And preaching the opposite things, he seemed to have -- did he become mentally ill?

And then -- before we get to that question.

When did he become involved in politics with Tim Walz and everything else?

JOE: Well, he was appointed to a governor's workforce development council, first by Governor Mark Dayton, who was a Democrat.

And then Tim Walz. Of course, we all know Tim Walz. He appointed him to a similar group.

And he spent about nine years on these boards.

These are adviser counsels, that typically.

GLENN: Was this when he was a preacher, or with Del Monte?

JASON: Well, you know, actually, some of this stuff overlapped, and it was all going on at the same time.

GLENN: Okay.

JASON: And he got other ventures that were going on, just this guy is -- is -- is really a puzzle.

But he did get appointed to these two commissions, by democratic governors.

And, you know, so we looked around to try to find out if there is -- aside from that, is there any indicators, that this was a political man.

We know he was pro-life.

He was opposed to abortion. He spoke about that. But we did not find any indication of political donations, either federally, state, or local. That he gave donations to any political party or candidate. The newspaper in Oklahoma City claims that he was a registered Republican, when he lived in Mulberry, Oklahoma.

But the -- the voting system folks out there, say, they don't keep records back that far anymore. So the article did not state where they got the information.

They didn't point to any proof of it.

So that seems fairly soft.

So we -- we just don't have a lot to go on.

Outside of this way backstory, with all these different jobs.

You know, he ostensibly ran a security company, called Pretorian guard.

Security services.

And he had several vehicles, that were kidded out, as the squad cars, basically.

You see these in different cities.

Pinkerton and other security counsels.

So he had several of those.
And, you know, he -- undoubtedly where he got his equipment. He was wearing the night that he committed these shootings.

And he was dressed up as a police officer.

But --

GLENN: In a creepy mask.

Okay. So hang on.

So we don't know if this guy had a political agenda. One way or another. On the -- I mean, he seemed to attack the Democrat, that was the one that was bucking the extreme, you know, left of her party.

Is there any -- is there any rhyme or reason of -- of -- or pattern of the people that were on his kill list?

JOE: Well, you know, that's one of the only tells that we have.

Is that he kept both in the vehicle, that he was driving that night, and in -- and in a room that he rented for his job. They found notebooks.

Handwritten notebooks. And in his car, there was what the FBI concluded was a hit list.

And there were more than 50 names on it.

And as far as I can tell, I have been checking every single one of them, but these were all Democrats. Not just Minnesota politicians.

But also in Iowa.

Illinois, and Wisconsin.

And he had lists of Planned Parenthood locations and officials in Minnesota on this list.

And, of course, the list didn't include a list of the former House speaker, who was assassinated along with her husband.

And the family dog. So, you know, that -- that list was very lopsided.

And we know -- do we know if any of those Democrats have anything in common?

Are they -- are they hard left?

Are they maybe mealy mouthed, you know, people that are -- I don't know.

I mean, she seems to be somebody who was bucking the system.

That the Democrats would want.
So it's not like this was a hard-core lefty. This seems like somebody who actually had a conscience. And was trying to do something that they really believed in. So why was she on the list?

Can you tell? Can you look at the politician's names to see any pattern on -- voting patterns or anything?

JOE: Well, in her case, ask this got almost no attention in the corporate press, within the past -- you know, past two weeks before her death. There was a key vote in the legislature in Minnesota. That would strip the subsidized health care for adults. Legal aliens.

And that was a very close vote.

And it turns out, she was the deciding vote.

The only one to cross party lines, to put that legislation over the top.

And so that -- you know, that certainly didn't endear her to -- to the left. Because that's a -- that's a kind of sacred cow.

And so come January 1st, next year, adult illegal aliens will no longer have access to the subsidized or free health care.

So that -- can that was a big vote.

And that something that you have to certainly put into the equation here and see if that provides any sort of -- any sort of motive.

But he didn't -- he really didn't have any visible interest in state politics. That we can see.

So, you know, there's --

GLENN: So bizarre.

JOE: There's a lot of somewhere. But, you know, he hasn't made at the same time to people that, oh. You know, so-and-so.

I just can't tanned this person.

Or -- or on the other side. You know, whether he was -- his -- his childhood friend claimed that he was a Trumper.

But, you know, we don't have any -- Minnesota is an open primary state.

So there's no records, we can check on that.

Just a lot of soft information.

And it -- I have a feeling, that when this is all said and done, his story, and the explanation, is going to go a lot deeper.

GLENN: Okay. Hold on just a second.

Because I've got a couple of questions.

Why did Tim Walz, you know, know this was a political assassination? Immediately.

You know, the -- phone now, that has been traced to several foreign countries. Is that because of the preaching thing.

His wife arrested with several passports.

I don't understand any of this.

So we'll get to that here in just a second.

We're talking to Joe Hanneman. He's TheBlaze News investigative reporter.

Just wrote another story on this today.

You can find it on TheBlaze.com. Let me tell you does and right into Joe.

When your dog isn't living his best. The best, healthiest life.

It's not like he can tell you.

He just slows down. He eats less.

Sleeps more. He moves differently. And you start to wonder. Is this just what happens when dogs get older, or is something missing? This is why Ruff Greens exists. It's a nutritional supplement that you add to your dog's existing food.

Not to change what they eat, but to upgrade what they get out of it. Ruff Greens is loaded with vitamins, probiotics, minerals, digestive enzymes, all the good stuff, the live stuff, that most kibble leaves out.

And for a lot of dogs, the difference is noticeable. More energy. Better digestion.

Improved mobility. Even a shinier coat. I've seen it in countless testimonials from people who love their dogs enough, to make one simple change. And I've seen the difference it can make when I've given to my to go. The added years I believe Uno got.

And the happy years that Uno got, because of Ruff Greens, sincerely.

Call them at 214RUFFDOG. R-U-F-F Dog. 214RUFFDOG. Or go to RuffGreens.com. Use the discount code Beck. R-U-F-FGreens.com.

Discount code Beck, or call 214-RUFF-DOG. Ruff Greens for healthy change for your changing dog.

Ten-second station ID.
(music)
Okay. So when this happened, we're talking about the Minnesota shooting.

Tim Walz comes out. Seemingly, almost immediately.

At least, that's what it felt.

And said, you know, this was a political assassination.

Was this just speculation?

Or wishful thinking? How did he know that?

JASON: That's a great question. And no one asked him that.

What led you to the conclusion that this is a politically connected assassination.

It clearly was targeted. I mean, he just elected his victims or potential victims from that night.

But you would think that you would have some Intel in nothing that was ever shared to say, yeah. This is why.

We know this is why.

In fact, the FBI and the -- the local police will not ascribe a motive. Even after looking at all his notebooks. Which they haven't released all the pages of them.

They did put them on the hit list.

Yeah. I found that to be very telling. He would describe it in that manner.

And I think that set off some of the back and forth between the right and the left of finger pointing on this.

GLENN: Right. And then the police knew somehow. Go to the second location. In advance of the shootings.

How did they do that?

JASON: Well, these communities are all fairly close together.

And after Senator Hoffmann was shot, and his wife was shot, at about 2:00 a.m. on the 14th, that word was circulated to all the area departments. And several of them did proactive policing.

And since, I checked out some of their law makers.

GLENN: But they didn't stop him, did they?

At the second location?

JASON: No. The second location, the family had changed their plans, and they were gone. So they were not even home.

It was the third location, where this fellow was parked in his fake squad car, about a block away from a state senator's home.

And the local police. New police department squad pulled up next to him, and tried to get his attention. Of course, he's got this creepy looking milky white mask over his head, and he just stared straight ahead.

And the officer apparently was satisfied by the look of the vehicle. And said, oh, this must be -- this must be an officer from some jurisdiction here, watching out from the house.

So that officer continued on to the state senator's home.

And waited for some backup. By the time, other squads arrived, he was gone.

He took off. And he went to the Hortman home, where he murdered the former speaker, her husband, and the family dog.

So he certainly could have been stopped. If -- if there had been maybe a little bit more -- shine the flashlight in there.

Or back in the window saying, hey, hey, but they didn't do that.

GLENN: Okay. So I've only got two minutes left.

So do you pick which one has more information in it.

The phone being traced to so many foreign countries. Or his wife being stopped, with cash and passports. And everything else in her car.

Do either of those make a difference to this story?

JASON: Well, I think there is an explanation for the wife. You know, he had texted. There's a group text to all of his family. His children and his wife. In which, he said, dad went to war last night. And he said, he didn't want to tell them much about that. Because he didn't want to implicate them, in anything he was doing.

And that he texted his wife -- said he called or texted his wife separately.

And said, there will be police coming to the house.

And they will be trigger happy.

And I don't want you to be there. So he triced her to -- to take the kids. But she -- she had $10,000 in cash. She had passports and she had the kids with her.

Well, of course, the police were tracking her phone.

And they pulled her over, you know, and he was 80 miles away. And she volunteered to let them look into her phone.

To look at the picks. They found the weapons and the ammunition in the vehicle as well.

So, you know, again, these things just make you pause.

GLENN: I know.

Joe, thank you so much.

Really great to have you writing for TheBlaze. We'll continue to talk to you about this and follow the story, because it's absolutely bizarre.

Appreciate it. Have a great weekend.

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.