RADIOFebruary 02, 2023

Is the FBI’s search for hidden Biden documents ALL FOR SHOW?

The FBI is FINALLY searching one of President Biden’s home for hidden documents, and agents already searched his D.C. think tank for them as well. But why now? Why weren’t these searches conducted LAST YEAR, when the DOJ first was informed the documents ever existed? Glenn’s chief writer, Jason Buttrill, joins the show to explain how the Democrats, the FBI, and the DOJ likely worked together to cover up this entire Biden scandal just days before the midterm. So, could this be one of the biggest examples of election interference in U.S. history?!

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Jason Buttrill who has an update for us. Jason, give me -- give me the update on what is happening now with Joe Biden and the FBI.

JASON: Hello, Glenn. Well, I'm sure everyone has seen this all over Twitter. There's like aerial cams from helicopters going over President Biden's house right now. They're live streaming the FBI raiding their house.

Looking for their classified documents. Everyone see that.

No. They're not treating it the same way they did. And this is amazing. They've been in their house.

Sources told CNBC, I think, was the first to report this. It was a very small story. I didn't hardly see anyone recording on it.

But they have been there. And the FBI just recently took a look at his DC think tank office. That took them around 12 hours.

So I'm assuming they will be there probably all day. This is really unprecedented.

Stu mentioned this earlier. What they're opening this up -- opening this up here. And the reason why, is because you're looking at a -- a weaponized Department of Justice. And FBI.

And I think when you look at this, on a time line. I think this -- I think this is covering up, as one of the biggest election interferences in American history.

Can I explain that, Glenn?

GLENN: Yes. Can you?

JASON: I can. So when we first heard about this. When the comments started materializing, Biden's lawyers found classified documents of the DC think tank office on November 2nd.

Why did we not hear anything then?

Because that wasn't -- in the very middle of the hoopla surrounding Trump and the raid at Mar-a-Lago.

Why didn't we hear about this update? Well, just six days later, it was the midterms. They couldn't let it go, because what we all knew was the raid at Mar-a-Lago was just a big political stunt. That's all it was.

They were losing hard-core in the polls. They knew they were about to take a big defeat in the midterms. They needed the whammy. And that whammy was the raid on Donald Trump's house. That's what it was. We all knew what it was. Now we're seeing it materialize. That's exactly what was going on. One day later, the DOJ on November 9th. The DOJ and the FBI decided, you know what, I think we should look at these classified documents found in his home.

I think maybe it could have been a violation of federal law. We're going to look at it. Oh, really?

A day after the midterms. Now you're going to decide? Because of this slow drip process, we didn't even hear about that.

We only just now heard about that a few weeks ago. And now that the FBI is now moving around some of these places. We're starting to see the FBI is completely boxed in. They've been caught. They were outed in this scheme to work with the Democrats.

To tank Republicans. To tank Donald Trump. And now they're like, okay. Well, now crud.

We have to move. We have to do a raid. We have to get involved and show that, hey, at least we're taking it seriously. Will they eventually in the end? Highly doubt it. Because this has been a sham since the beginning.

GLENN: All right. So here's a couple of questions.

First, you didn't touch on what CBS News has just reported that the FBI conducted another undisclosed search of the Biden Center back in November. I think that you might have just mentioned it in passing here.

They -- they knew that the -- that these were in existence. They knew this was a problem.

But they go and they raid it.

And the White House hasn't ever talked about it.

The White House is telling America, that they're very, very transparent.

They're cooperating, 100 percent.

Who is shutting down the information?

Who is --

PAT: Yeah!

GLENN: Is there a single journalist that would like to -- well, you're not going to win a Pulitzer. Because you have to lie to win one of those. Is there anybody that cares enough about the truth, no matter where it falls? That they'll tell the truth?

PAT: No. We just found out about that raid, that you mentioned this week. We found out about it, this week. It happened way back then.

It was almost like a drip process, when they went to move on Trump.

Remember how investigative these journalists were being. They were looking at torn-up notes in toilet bowls.

That's like, oh, exclusive. We found these torn-up notes. Look how careless he is. Then we start finding out about these classified documents at Mar-a-Lago. That's the lengths they're willing to go.

All of this stuff. Like, you have lawyers involved within the Biden administration. You have the DOJ involved, the FBI involved, going back months. And not a single journalist knew a thing about it?

GLENN: All right. So, of course, that's not true.

So, Jason, tell me, what do you think is happening?

Why would the FBI be raiding his house yet again?

Why would they be doing this today?

JASON: Well, I seriously think this -- this could point toward. We know it was a two-pronged reason for raiding Mar-a-Lago, and Donald Trump.

One, it was a heck of a -- it was a heck of a pre-October surprise, for the midterm election.

That's one. I think that was one of the biggest things. The second, they also wanted to prosecute him.

They didn't want him to run for president again, in the next election. That was a big thing. Now, I don't think anyone on the left, wants Joe Biden to run again in 2024. I do not think they want it. He was vulnerable now. But so is Trump. I think right now, they're kind of gambling.

Well, yes. We opened them both up to prosecution. They'll both be vulnerable. But do they care? No. I don't think they care.

I think now they're cutting their losses, and they're looking towards who actually they can find that is electable.

I don't think they have so many people that are electable. But I think that they see the vulnerability of Joe Biden.

That's a bonus for them. And they will continue with the vulnerability of Donald Trump. They will make an example --

GLENN: This is banana republic. This is banana republic stuff.

JASON: Oh, yeah.

GLENN: You don't go in and raid a sitting president's home.

You don't do it.

We've never, ever done anything like this. We've never done it with Donald Trump.

Now they're going and raiding a sitting president's home. That's fine, if we had a Justice Department, that we trusted.

But we don't!

We know they're not after real justice.

So that leads you to what is -- what is it that they're after?

This becomes extraordinarily dangerous, for a republic.

If your Justice Department is corrupt. And the Deep State is in charge, and they can just take any president, and go into their house and raid it.

And charge him on things that Hillary Clinton didn't go to jail for.

Nobody went -- I can't believe I'm actually kind of defending Joe Biden here.

Because I'm defending the process. You should have done this from the beginning. Now they're using this as a political tool, I fear.

Because the biggest tool is Hunter Biden. And the things that are coming out about Hunter Biden are really, really damaging.

It looks -- what was it? Yesterday, Jason.

We had the story about Hunter's -- Hunter setting up the biotech labs. The bioweapons lab in Ukraine.

He was the guy who helped start that. And helped fund that. What's that all about?

JASON: I think the further we start seeing -- the Ukraine stuff. The business dealings with Hunter Biden, the rest of his family. And why they're so hyper focused with Ukraine. And why they're so hyper focused on making sure that everything is secure there.

You know, they have to make sure that, you know, all of those skeletons are completely buried. I don't even think that we're -- we probably haven't even scratched the surface. I mean, we covered Burisma in detail. Now we're getting hints of this. Those are the things we know. What do we not know that we have of our fingers in? This is absolutely insane.

GLENN: You know, what's bothered me so much is the amount of money, that's gone over there.

Because we know most of it has not gone to the front lines. We've had people on the front lines, who would verify this.

We're not seeing an influx of things. Why are all those things going?

You're seeing ten politicians had to step down, because they were taking the aid and funneling it towards their families, et cetera, et cetera.

Ten politicians. We're not monitoring anything.

And I think this is a huge payoff. Did you see that it was -- what was it? $2.5 billion, they say was given out, during the PPP program, that shouldn't have been given out? All went to corruption.

$2.5 billion. Do you know politically, what could be done with a billion dollars?

Ten billion dollars.

If this money is being funneled nefarious places, which is the only way dirty money ever goes.

It's not like it goes to the church. This money is being funneled somewhere. Where?

Who is using that money for what kind of a global campaign?

Where is that money's influence being felt?

We need to know this. Jason, is your -- is it your belief, at this point, that the government is going to move on Joe Biden, more than this?

JASON: Well, I kind of do. Because I don't think -- I don't really see an out on the DOJ and FBI on this. I really don't.

They've already -- you know, the grenade they've dropped with Trump. And now all the Revelations that are coming out about Biden. I just don't see how they can -- they're going to try and minimize and make it seem more benign, what Biden did.

I -- I saw that, in just some of the early reporting on the raids. The FBI search today. They are trying to say, oh, Joe Biden is in full cooperation with the FBI.

And, you know, more than happy to let the FBI search his home today.

There's no difference between that and what Donald Trump did. He was in cooperation with the FBI. He allowed them access. They went and looked.

They searched through the file folders. Looked at everything. And said, hey, let's spread things apart, and put a padlock on that door.

Okay. So he did it. What is the difference?

Really? What is the difference? There is no difference. But you can already see them. You know, calling their shot right now. They're going to try to make this look more benign. They'll probably end up saying, okay. We find no criminality here. For some weird magic trick. We find criminality with Donald Trump. But in the end, they're both vulnerable with the ultimate --

GLENN: So do you think that there's -- do you think there's a chance that this is -- because this is what I'm hearing from people.

The left is done with the Bidens. And so now this is all coming from the Deep State. And they're just going to destroy him and his family.

JASON: Yeah. And, Glenn, just a real quick point on just how Deep State is right now, and how much they're outing themselves.

I mean, just look at the DOJ and the FBI. Look at what they did to the pro-life activists.

GLENN: I know. I know.

JASON: But can you believe that? The DOJ actually -- they knew they did not have a case, Glenn. They knew they did not have a case. They knew how flimsy it was. He wasn't even blocking this entrance. This other activist went towards a hook.

Basically ran him down the street. And then he had -- as per in the court. The Planned Parenthood CEO admitted that this guy had those issues before. He had been confronting people out on the street, which they were told not to do before. So the DOJ knew they didn't have a case. But what did they do? They still went. Because it was retaliation. Their flagship issue Roe v. Wade had gotten overturned. So they wanted to deliver a gut punch, had nothing to do with justice. But they were weaponized.

I mean, this on top of what is going on with Biden Trump are now -- there's the bee sting right there. They are fully weaponized, and they're coming after you.

GLENN: Yeah. That's what disturbs me.

Yesterday, we had a guy who filed a lawsuit here in Texas, against the ATF. On the -- what do you call them?

The stocks. The collapse I believe stocks.

But what do they call it?

The pistols that can turn into rifles, magically, with the stabilizing stocks.

And the ATF said, those are absolutely legal.

They've been legal for years. Blah, blah, blah. Now through a stroke of a pen, not Congress or anything else. They decided, that's a felony to own one of those. In case you missed yesterday's podcast. We talked to the guy who was filing suit. Because yesterday, was the day that it actually became -- in the Federal Registry. Which means, it's now officially on the books.

So the clock started running yesterday. You have 120 days, before you're a felon.

They -- they may not get away with this.

But what they're doing, when you say weaponizing. There are two things that people have to understand.

How a -- a national socialist kind of takeover usually happens. Is they make so many things through regulation illegal, that almost everybody is in violation of something. And then they apply pressure, selectively, to who they want to apply pressure.

So if you have one of those guns, and you haven't filed in 120 days, because you're waiting for the court to speak on it. What's going to happen to you?

They will arrest you, even if they know, nothing is going to happen.

They want to make people's lives miserable, through the system.

That way, they can control you.

Even if it doesn't end up, that you have to be held in jail. The whole process, is the real punishment.

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