RADIOJune 09, 2025

SHOCKING feud erupts: Why did Musk drop the Epstein bomb on Trump?

The feud between Elon Musk and President Trump went nuclear on X after Elon claimed Trump was in the Epstein Files. “Why would he do this?” asks Glenn Beck. Glenn and Stu review the biggest rumors that came out after the fight.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: So in chronological order, this is what happened.

Because Elon had been calling to kill the big, beautiful bill. So first thing yesterday, Trump is responding to Elon's criticism. Here it is, listen.

VOICE: Thank you, president. The criticism I've seen and I'm sure you've seen regarding Elon Musk and your big, beautiful bill. What's your reaction to that?

Do you think it any way hurts passage in the Senate, which, of course, is what you're seeking?

DONALD: Well, look, I've always liked Elon. And it's always very surprised. You saw the words he had for me. The words. And, yes. Said that thing about me that's bad. I would rather have him criticize me than the bill because the bill is incredible.

It's the biggest cut in the history of our country. We have never cut -- it's about 1.6 trillion in cuts.

It's the biggest tax cut, tax, you would say, people -- people's taxes will go way down. But it's the biggest tax cut in history.

We are doing things in that bill that are unbelievable.

GLENN: So Russ Voit is going to be on with us, by the way, in 30 minutes. So I think that's really mild. I mean, he's just responding to Elon's criticism. Look, I would rather have him criticism me than the bill. Because we disagree it.

Blah, blah. Then Elon responds. Whatever. Keep the EV solar incentive cuts in the bill, even though no oil and gas subsidies are touched.

Very unfair. But ditch the mountain of disgusting pork in the bill. In the entire history of civilization, there has never been legislation, that was both big and beautiful, and everyone knows this.

Either you get a big and ugly bill, or a slim and beautiful bill. Slim and beautiful is the way.

Then Elon reupped a bunch of old Trump tweets, where he announced raising the debt limit.
And then he made a poll.

Is it time to create a new political party in America, that actually represents 80 percent in the middle? Yes or no?

By this point, now Trump who was showing tremendous restraint has to respond. He writes, Elon was wearing thin. I asked him to leave.

I took away his EV mandate. That forced to everybody to buy electric cars that nobody else wanted. He knew that for months, that I was going to do this.

And he just went crazy. Then he writes, the easiest way to save money in our budget. Billions and billions of dollars is to terminate Elon's governmental subsidies and contracts. I was always advised that Biden didn't do it.

Me too.

Well, Elon responded by threatening decommission his SpaceX Dragon spacecraft. He says, in light of the president's statement about cancellation of my government contract, SpaceX, SpaceX will be decommissioning its Dragon spacecraft, immediately.

Now, this is -- this is crazy. This is crazy.

Then Elon, after he lost a lot of people on this. He writes, time to drop the really big bomb. Real Donald Trump is in the Epstein files. That's the real reason they have not been made public. Have a nice day, DJT.

Why would he do this? Why would he do this?

Elon says, mark this post for the future, because the truth will come out.

Now, Trump, again, who I think was pretty restrained all day, compared to Elon Musk. I don't mind Elon turning against me. But he should have done so months ago. This is one of the greatest bills ever presented to Congress. It's a record cut in expenses. $1.6 trillion, and the biggest tax cut ever given. If this bill doesn't pass, there will be a 68 percent tax increase. Things get far worse than that. I didn't create this mess. I am just trying to fix it. This puts our country on a path of greatness. Make America great again.

After that, everybody starts to calm down a little bit. Do you happen to have the -- Linda and David Sacks tweet?

Because they both kind of stand up for the big, beautiful bill. In saying, it needs to pass!
Now, she's a CEO, isn't she?

Or is she the president of X?

CEO of X. And David Sacks is a good friend of Elon Musk. And they're both saying, no, no, no.

We've got to pass the big beautiful bill. So then you have Bill Ackman stepping up.

Now, the White House said, they were trying to schedule a call with Elon sometime today, to work this out.

Which, if you look at the actual facts, Donald Trump was more restrained than I think I've ever seen him.

Would you agree with that, Stu?

STU: Yeah. He did not -- certainly, didn't go nuclear like Elon Musk did.

GLENN: No. No.

STU: I mean, he did address it. He started getting a little more critical about Elon.

GLENN: Right.

STU: But it seemed to be ramping up slowly. And all of a sudden, someone dropped nine nuclear bombs on to the -- the battlefield.

GLENN: Right. Right.

Bill Ackman writes, a support real Donald Trump and Elon Musk. And they should make peace for the benefit of our great country. We're much stronger together than apart.

Elon writes, last night at 9:27, you're not wrong.

So hopefully, this is over. But look at the damage that this has done.

This has given the -- the left all kinds of ammunition.

You know, nothing, but talking points.

Elon Musk is never going to be reembraced by the left.

I don't think he really cares about that.

But he should care about -- you know, we need the guy to survive. He's one of the greatest minds of -- of our day. Of our lifetime!

He's probably the greatest scientific mind, as far as putting things into practical use, since Tesla!

The first Tesla, you know. The real Tesla.

And we have to have that, guys.

But we have to have Donald Trump. And we have to have a country!

Now, I -- I want at home cut more out of this budget. But let's not blow this damn thing up. Let's not blow everything up, out of the water. This is not good. Who does this chaos serve?

Certainly, not the country. Not the republic. And not anybody who is trying to navigate these crazy waters.

STU: Glenn, can we talk for a second about the specific allegation of -- of him being in the Epstein files.

GLENN: Yes.

STU: We've already known that, by the way.

STU: Number one, of course, technically, it's accurate that he was in there. They were friends. If you're looked at everything that -- that -- like every flight on Jeffrey Epstein's plane.

You know, Donald Trump flew on the plane.

I don't think there's any evidence he went to the island.

Certainly no evidence that he did anything illegal with Jeffrey Epstein.

They were friends before these accusations came out.

Technically speaking, Elon Musk has been saying something that has been well-covered in the media already.

And might protect him from legal consequences, because of that tweet.

I mean, if they really had a falling out, I mean, Trump -- Trump sued CBS of their editing of the Kamala Harris interview.

Being called a pedophile basically on the internet. Would I'm sure merit a lawsuit. If they really had a falling out.

Technically speaking, Musk would probably survive that.

Likely because, of course, Trump is in there.

It's something we've known for a long time. By the way, we should know. Probably dozens of other completely innocent people, that would be in those files.

It doesn't mean that everybody they ever interacted with this guy, slept with children.

GLENN: Yeah. So Musk was releasing these videos of him. And, you know, Epstein.

And nobody denies that he was around Epstein. Nobody denies that. But what nobody cares to recognize is that as soon as Donald Trump, you know, had an inkling of who this guy was really, and some -- one of the women, you know, at his club, abused by Epstein, he cut the friendship. Kicked him out!

And said, we're done. Get out.

I mean, he was the one guy that I know of, the one guy, with moral spine, around Epstein.

STU: Right. Yeah.

GLENN: And let's not forget, there's Elon Musk pictures with Maxwell. So, I mean --

STU: Is that even true?

GLENN: It's a very small circle.

STU: It's hard to know what's being Photoshopped. I don't even know.

GLENN: Oh, my gosh. Are you kidding me? Really?

STU: I don't know. I've seen photos of them. I honestly don't know. I always assume they're fake, until I know.

But who knows? Again, everybody has pictures. Especially famous people. Famous people hang out at the same parties.

That doesn't prove anything.

Honestly, if there is something here.

And you mentioned this earlier, Glenn.

If there was something Donald Trump, that he did something wrong with Jeffrey Epstein.

I can assure you the Biden administration would have found a way to release that.

And it even speaks poorly of Musk in a way. If there was terrible evidence here. I mean, was he going to just go along and not -- just, you know, be quiet about Trump's sexual abuse of children, if the cuts came through, the spending bill, the way he wanted them.

All of them is absurd. All of them is not real. It's a couple guys throwing insults at each other. In this particular case. Trump much more restrained than Elon Musk, I would argue.

Even though, again, lots of positives with Elon Musk.

He's the one that really went nuclear here. And I do hope cooler heads would prevail. Because it's good for the country, Glenn.

GLENN: Because I know you've -- you've really done your homework on Elon Musk.

And he has -- he has moments where he is not -- where he's manic. Is it possible that this is a manic episode with -- with Elon?

STU: I have -- you know, no evidence. Not --

GLENN: Yeah, I know.

STU: To be clear, I'm not accusing anybody of anything.

But, you know, to look at, if you read the biography. The Isaacson biography about him, there are periods during that time, times where he's sleeping on the floor of the factory. You know, that type of period, if you remember that period, Glenn. Where it does appear that he goes into what you might call, you know, a manic state. And makes a lot of poor decisions. Decisions that wind up really hurting the stock price. You know, tweeting out things, that he winds up getting sued for.

There are a lot of periods in Elon's life where that type of stuff seems to happen. Add on to that. The New York Times. Again, take it for what it's worth.

Elon has a lot of enemies inside the White House. That's something that you should know. We don't know where this came from. But, you know, lots of accusations of drug use and things of that nature as well.

GLENN: When you say drug use, it's really ketamine, isn't it?

STU: Ketamine was one of them. It was more than just that. I can pull the article up. But one of the interesting notes in the article is one of the ways the New York Times claims that they made this available to actually be reported and it wasn't just a rumor that somebody told them. Was they had photographic evidence of these pills.

Now, Glenn, how many times has someone, that you know, taken pictures of your pillbox, or your pill bottles?

GLENN: Oh, my gosh, that happens all the time. All the time.

STU: This is not something that occurs to normal people that doesn't have enemies around them. Right?

My speculation, is somebody around him, saw him taking pills. Took pictures of them. And sent them to the New York Times.

Supposedly. Now, the Times are like, his friends are concerned about him. That's their excuse. I don't buy that at all.

GLENN: I don't either. Nobody has friends at that level in Washington, DC. Nobody.

STU: Especially it would be like, you know what, I'm concerned about Elon, I will leak these photos to the New York Times.

Like, there's no friend of his, who would do that. It's absurd.

It's somebody who hated his guts, or wanted to destroy him. And wanted these bad things to come out about him, in my estimation.

So, you know, could that be true. There could be some truth to it. I don't know.

Could it be that he's in a manic period? Could it be that he's really frustrated? And this is how he operates with everybody else, and it's not that big a deal.

Most people shrug it off because it's just normal internet drama. When you're doing it to the president of the United States, it takes on a totally different shape.

GLENN: Not good.

Yeah. Here's the thing. Just pray for both men. And pray for our republic. This is not good for any of us. We need them both to get along.

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