RADIOApril 30, 2024

Is NPR’s Woke CEO Katherine Maher WORSE Than We Thought?

NPR’s president and CEO Katherine Maher made headlines after NPR punished journalist Uri Berliner for exposing the network’s leftist bias … and then for her past outrageous statements about free speech. But is she even more nefarious than we thought? Blaze News staff writer Joseph MacKinnon joins Glenn to explain the theory that she is also a government asset: “From 30,000 feet, she looks like not just a tech-savvy media queen, but someone who spent a lot of time around color revolutions.” Glenn and Joseph run through Maher’s odd history of visiting nations that the CIA has helped overthrow and speculate whether she’s part of a plan to stage a color revolution in America as well. But whether she’s a CIA asset or not, MacKinnon argues, one thing is clear: “She might as well have been.”

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: I want to go over this NPR boss. Which was, you know, kind of funny, at the beginning.

And then the more you learn about it. The more you're like, well, hang on just a second. Because she would be a -- a very important tool in the hands of the government. And she's being paid, by National Public Radio. So she's being -- she is a tool of the government, in many ways.

Can she separate herself, from her own personal beliefs?

Or is that even wanted at nonprofit? We wanted to bring in Joe MacKinnon. Joe is a Blaze News Staff Writer. And she's been following up on this. Joe, take us from the beginning. From the -- the -- the whistle-blower, if you will.

All the way to Christopher Rufo. And then let's pick it up from there. So can you tell us the beginning of it, Joe?

BIDEN: Absolutely. Thanks for having me on. So Uri Berliner earlier this month. Had this damning exposé, in the free press, April 9th.

He goes after NPR, after having worked there for a quarter of a century, as a senior business editor. There's zero diversity, particularly after the former CEO had made it an activist organization.

And that allied it effectively with the Democratic Party.

This is a publication according to Berliner, that didn't want to cover the Hunter Biden laptop story.

That worked with Adam Schiff to push the Russian collusion hoax.

So he goes to town, on NPR. And draws the ire of someone who has not been on a lot of people's radar. That's Katherine Maher. Or Maher, I should say. So Maher comes up with this long response, and effectively cusses him out. In more charitable terms. And he subsequently, he is offended. And then he resigns. So people start looking into Maher after -- after this. Because she was with Wikipedia before.

But I guess, flew under the radar. For a lot. Particularly on the right. Or those -- among those who are critical of the government.

And at first blush, she looks just like another shrill left partisanship she has the obligatory photo. Wearing the Biden campaign hat.

She has an unhealthy obsession with race. That photo exists. The tweet speaks for itself. And you keep digging as Rufo has. And you realize, really quickly, that there's something going on here.

From 30,000 feet, she looks like not just a tech savvy media queen. But someone who spent a lot of time around Colour Revolutions and the orient, enough to know how they might be replicated.

GLENN: Okay. So hang on just a second.

The campuses and boardrooms are full of leftists. But you're saying, and Christopher Rufo is saying, she is not your ordinary leftist.

She has been around Colour Revolutions. What does that mean, she's been around Colour Revolutions.

JOE: Okay. One of the many interesting posts she's had. I should note at the outset here, she's a World Economic Forum, World Global leader.

She's worked with the World Bank. She's worked with various NGOs that are in the tech, coms, and, well, foreign policy space.

So around 2010, 2011. And Rufo chronicled her travel itinerary. She's with the National Democratic Institute. And that's a spin-off of the National Endowment for Democracy, committed to -- yeah. Exactly.

You know where I'm going with this. This is an organization that tries to transition, unwilling regimes to become liberal democracies.

GLENN: Can I redefine that a little bit?

It's a CIA front.

JOE: Well, Mike Benz -- he was in the Trump administration at the State Department. He said, exactly that. He said, to carve out for the CIA. And other people have said just as much.

In fact, I think it was Ron Dixon, at the New York Times, back when, he said the NBI was actively fomenting protests during the so-called Arab spring.

GLENN: Uh-huh. We -- we know this. I exposed that, when we were at Fox.

We've known that from the beginning. It didn't take a brain surgeon to figure this out.

Then, when you go into Ukraine, and see what they were doing and the phrases that they were using. Saying, you know, we can -- we can spread this now. We kind of perfected it. In the Middle East. And we can spread it. And that's exactly what we were doing, in Ukraine.

JOE: Well, precisely, Ukraine. Libya. Egypt. Yemen. Tunisia. And so she's kind of been on a pilgrimage to these toppled regimes. And in some cases, as they're falling.

So Rufo notes, that she goes to Tunisia a couple times. She goes to Gedden (phonetic) in Southern Turkey. Just as rebels are making inroads, along the highway between Damascus and I believe it's Aleppo. And she actually said, not a long time ago. She framed the timing differently. She said in the aftermath of the revolution, she was doing research on the ground. With, quote, unquote, human rights activists.

And independent journalists.

And so she -- she is with the NBI. She's going to Tunisia. And she raises a couple of alarm bells. There's this Tunisian cabinet official. And, well, he basically -- he straight-up said, it's a likely case, that she works for a certainty letter agency. And a lot of people have been speculating about that in recent weeks.

GLENN: So what is her -- what is her background in broadcast? And news?

JOE: Well, she deals a lot with -- in terms of news, she's been critical of the ways that governments have weaponized their state broadcasters. Which I think --

GLENN: Right. Yeah. Yes. But what is she -- does she have a background in -- in news?

Is she a journalist.

Is she -- I mean, why is she -- I see she's traveled the world. That she's with the World Bank. And the WEF. And she's been with NGOs. And she's been around revolutions. But that doesn't necessarily scream CEO of NPR.

JOE: Well, I think Wikipedia, where she ran the show for, for several years.

GLENN: Oh.

JOE: Yeah.

And it was under her reign, that it quickly became clear that this was -- well, supposed to be a repository for human knowledge. Right?

GLENN: Right. It's not.

JOE: Recently you talked about how memory is the key to where we are. Well, Wikipedia is instrumental to capturing and curating that memory for a lot of people. So she may not be a journalist. But she was very much, I don't want to suggest there's a causation, she pretends that the Wikipedia editors who are working on their own.

But while she's in control, there's very much a narrative curation going on. A kind that you might want, at taxpayer funded broadcasts --

GLENN: Gosh. Jeez.

Okay. So the rumor that she's with CIA. Where did that originate?

JOE: So I mentioned, she went to Tunisia a couple times, right?

GLENN: Right.

JOE: So this cabinet official. I think I'm pronouncing that right.

But Slim Amamou. I think I'm pronouncing that right. But Slim said in 2016, it's a bit of a retrospective.

He's looking back. And I believe it's around the time. She's getting a promotion over at Wikipedia. He straight-up says, she's probably CIA.

He's not mincing words. He says, she's come over under different affiliations. With World Bank.

With USAID. And he suggests. And this is going on Twitter.

Still called that.

He suggests that she may as well have had CIA written on her front.

So Slim was in the transitional government.

He dropped out to protest, so-called. And he -- you know, not entirely, the top of the food chain. But someone you might at least want to hear out.

And so she is prickled by the suggestion.

She responds saying, I am no sort of agent. You can dislike me, but please don't tie me.

But then, that brought even more scrutiny.
Because people took notice of the way she framed that response.

So Christina Pushaw. She's on the DeSantis team. She said, for instance, okay. You may not have been an agent, but you could have just as well have been an asset.

GLENN: Yeah.

JOE: But the CIA element, I think, you know, I haven't seen any incontrovertible proof.

It's also largely immature.

She's also directly worked with the Biden administration.

She's worked with and brushed shoulders with all these regime change groups. So whether or not she has CIA on the card, somewhere, tucked into her desk.

She may as well have been.

GLENN: And this is -- this is part of the group, that -- I mean, Hillary Clinton, that infamous clip, where she said, we came, we saw, and died.

And laughed about it.

I think who she was talking about, at the time.

Might have been Samantha Power. Who is Cass Sunstein's wife. Author of nudge.

And somebody, who knows how to nudge people into new positions.

But Sam now works at USAID. She's the head of USAID.

So if you have the head of NPR, also working with Samantha Power, at USAID. That is also a CIA front.

JOE: Oh, absolutely. And I think it was Michael Waller and Rufo. She's a national security analyst. And he said, he drew that same connection with power.

And intimated said that Maher is part of his revolutionary vanguard movement.

So, you know, they're all in bed together. By the looks of it, I should say.

I don't want a mean tweet. And then, you couple this, with her public comments. And then, it lends even more gravity to this -- well, her becoming the head of NPR. Which was --

GLENN: Give me some of her -- give me some of her public comments, that I may not know.

JOE: Okay. Well, and I did a little bit of a -- a lot of these already are circulating.

GLENN: Uh-huh.

JOE: But Donald Trump -- so, you know, for instance, in 2021 interview, and this one caught a lot of people's attention in recent days.

She described the First Amendment as the top challenge in the fight against disinformation.

So the challenge -- yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

It's a challenge, because, quote, it's a little bit tricky to really address some of the real challenges of where, does that information come from? Sort of the influence peddlers who made a real market economy around it.

And, by the way, when she's talking about disinformation. She means skepticism of COVID-19 vaccines.

GLENN: Right.

JOE: Which will lead it to the show. Which was mentioned, that --

GLENN: Correct.

JOE: Devastating impact. Well, so is disinformation, according to the former head of Wikipedia. She also learned that it won't fly for her.

So an Atlantic Council 2021 event, she says Wikipedia isn't a free expression platform.

And so that -- a lot of people are wondering why. And she suggests, and I created content that people can add confidence to.

That they can make determinations in their right. So in that right, they have access to high integrity content, often sort of trumps the right to free speech.

Now, pair that with the fact that she suggests, straight out, in a TED talk, that, quote, a reverence for the truth, might be a distraction.

And it's getting in the way of finding common ground for getting things country. So I don't know who that common ground belongs to, by the way.

But it's certainly not the people.

GLENN: Yeah. That's a fantastic. Okay.

I'm going to come back. Let me take one minute to break for a sponsor.

And then I want to come back. And then I want to ask you.

So if she was a tool, even a little bit in Colour Revolution.

What is the fear that she could do? Or what is the impact she could have here in America? By being the CEO of nonprofit?

Back in just a second. Stand by.

Let's say that you had an employee. And here's what he did. He spent too much of the company's money. A bunch of which he actually stole. In fact, he ran the company into huge, huge debt. Where there was no turning back from it.

Ensuring the stock was worth less and less every day, until the whole thing went belly-up. On top of that, he was a jerk about that, to all the other employees beneath him.

What would I do with that employee? You would fire him, right?

Well, we don't do that. We call it Congress. We call at it administration. We call it the fed and the Treasury.

And we're all supposed to listen to them.

And they keep doing these things. We know they're doing these things. And yet we keep coming back to them, and saying, okay. How are you going to fix it? How are they going to fix it?

The fix is already in. Stop listening to those people! I want you to seriously consider gold or silver. There was a story in today's show prep at GlennBeck.com about China, and how the Chinese are just buying gold like crazy.

They're going on these vacancies, over to India. And they're just coming back with buckets of gold that they bought. They know in China, that that's the only hedge against insanity.

Well, I think we're in the land of insanity. We're now borrowing $1 trillion every 100 days.

Please, please, they have five-star reviews out the wazoo. They have a worry-free purchase guarantee.

24-hour free purchase guarantee.

They are the precious metals leader that you can trust.

It's Lear Capital.

Please, call them now.

Just get your free wealth protection guide. This is coming. And it's coming fast and hard.

They will also credit your account. $250 towards your purchase. So call today. At 800-957-GOLD. That's 800-957-GOLD.

Back in just a minute. Ten seconds.
(music)
So we're talking to Joe MacKinnon, who has written extensively for TheBlaze news.

You can go to Blaze.com. And find his work on NPR's CEO, who is looking to be far worse than what anybody thought she was. We just thought she was a crazy liberal. Or progressive.

But she seems to be. Possibly much more than that. Including, possibly working with the CIA.

But she -- she spent a lot of time around Colour Revolutions. We'll talk about that. Coming up in the next break.

But I just wanted to ask you, Joe, before you go. What is the impact, if this is true, that she could have with NPR at her disposal?

JOE: NPR has long been a joke. It's ineffective. Its viewership has dwindled immensely. She's shrewd. She's effective. This is an individual who had people believing that cultural Marxism is a far right conspiracy theory, when she was running with them.

And all the insights she's gleaned, when she was doing her, again, pilgrimage of farm state. And her understanding that capture of a state broadcaster could ultimately mean capture of the state.

Means that nonprofit is a weapon in her hands.

Potentially a weapon in her hands. There's over a thousand stations broadcasting at NPR programming. There's thousands of employees.

A bunch of bureaus across the country.

Now, I don't think they're going to do business as usual.

In fact, she's telegraphed that there's going to be a transformation behind the scenes. Nonprofit was already a leftist propaganda element.

Now I think it's going to be used, to foment. Or at the very least control.

The protests. And to at least have the power to weaponize various groups across the nation.
Send your marching orders, essentially out via NPR.

So Wikipedia -- and I'm surprised you left Wikipedia honestly. I think that's a more consequential place.

Wikipedia controls the past. And therefore, controls the future.

GLENN: Yes. Right.

JOE: I think NPR under her helm, I think the game, anyway, is controlling the present.

GLENN: Joseph MacKinnon, from theBlaze.com.

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