RADIOOctober 01, 2024

How the port worker strike will affect YOU

Port workers along the East and Gulf Coasts have gone on strike, demanding higher pay and job security with AI on the rise. But how long do Americans have before this strike affects the economy? Should you rush out and stock up before groceries become scarce? Or is there no need to panic? Glenn reviews what will likely happen week by week if the strike continues, including how long it will take for this to have months-long effects that impact the holidays. Plus, Glenn asks, why is this happening right before the election?!

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Okay. Let me take you first to another issue. You get up this morning, scrolling through your phone. Checking your news feed. Have a cup of coffee. Then there's this headline. US port workers begin nationwide strike.

Hmm. Okay. Good. Good.

Now, we could -- you could just blow this off, because of the ports, and, you know, dock workers sounds distant.

STU: It was the worst season of the wire.

GLENN: Okay.

STU: It's kind of the one you skip, I feel like.

GLENN: Okay. This one is about to reach out into your home. Your wallet. Your daily life.

So I need to explain what's coming our way.

First, in week one, in the first week, you might not notice much.

So there's no reason to panic. You can go and, you know, go to the store. Stock up on some things. But there's no reason to run out and do that, this week.

Your online orders are still arriving. Maybe you hear a blip on the news. About some ship stuck offshore. For a few industries hinting at some delay. But for most people, life will go on as normal, during week one. It started last night.

Now, behind the scenes, things are starting to shake and crack a little bit. Retailers, manufacturers, and businesses, that depend on regular shipments are beginning to feel the pinch, in week one.

The just in time supply system, you know, that we all learned about in COVID. That's beginning to have a little bit of a strain. And it's starting to wobble a little bit.

And while the shelves are still full for now, the stockrooms in the back are running thin. By week two, by the second week, you're going to start feeling things.

So next week, maybe midweek. If it's still going on, maybe you head for the store, and something as simple as bananas or a pair of new shoes. Suddenly the shelves aren't as full, some items just aren't there.

Fresh avocados or berries that you've gotten used to, are sitting on ships waiting to dock. And it's not just food. It's electronics. It's clothing. Even toys for your kids. They start becoming harder to find.

Prices, by week two, they may start on some items to inch upward.

Businesses are now scrambling to get their hands on what's left.

And the competition drives up cost.

That cheap TV, that you were thinking of buying, you may have to add anywhere from ten to 30 percent to the price tag.

By the end of week two.

If you were planning on doing some home repairs or upgrades.

Good luck.

All of the tools and materials are sitting in crates, gathering dust at the ports.

This is also a problem. Because of the hurricane. Had anything that you get at Home Depot is going to be in short supply, because of the hurricane, and by week two, the dock worker strike.

Now, by the third week, if it goes on that long, now we're getting into some problems.

It's no longer just a shortage of bananas or phone chargers. Entire industries begin to slow down. Factories that rely on parts from overseas. Just in time.

Can't keep running. So the workers in those factories. People you might know. Maybe it is you.

Are getting furloughed. Sent home without pay. Because there's nothing for you to build.

Grocery stores begin to ration some items. And limiting on some items how much you can buy.

Now, at this point, the strike is not a nuisance. This is week three. This point in week three, it becomes a crisis.

The online orders you placed, delayed. Weeks out. Businesses are pleading with the government for help by now.

But even if the strike ended, in week three, it would take weeks to untangle the mess at the ports. By now, inflation is beginning to rear its ugly head. Everything from groceries to gas to clothes is more expensive, than it was just two weeks ago.

Week four. This is -- this is when it becomes the full weight of the strike, is unavoidable.

And I believe it becomes a national security problem. And possibly by this time, in week four, it is just one part of what I am looking for. And will explain later on in the show.

A polycrisis. A polycrisis is what will take us out in a knockout blow. And you already have a little bit of a polycrisis with the dock workers and the hurricane.

Small businesses are now closing their doors. Because they can get their inventory. Grocery store shelves are sparse with some items missing altogether.

Your favorite brands might be out of stock. Maybe you head to the hardware store. Only to find that the building materials that you need are either unavailable or so expensive, they're out of reach.

Now, let's talk long-term. Timing couldn't be worse. Because we're heading into fall. And you know what that means. The holiday season.

Retailers are counting on the next few months for a huge chunk of their sales. And the Christmas gifts you've been eyeing. There's a good chance, they won't make it in time for Christmas. Toys, electronics. Clothing. They're sitting in ships. Or back ordered in factories. They can't get the parts. Even if the strike ends after four weeks. The backlog will last for months. Shipping will be slow.

And prices, you'll be paying a premium for anything you can find. So here's -- here's what you need to know: Week one, just be aware.

If you want to get some fruit. And you have some extra fruit in the house. You know, for week two, if it goes on that long, great.

I can't imagine, that strike goes on very long.

Because it will create a national emergency.

However, I'm not sure if our president is too busy lathering on sunscreen at the beach.

Or if his goals are just not the same as our goals.

To keep America safe and healthy.

So I don't know why. Remember the train negotiation?

You know, when you kept the trains running. He got involved immediately.

And he made sure that strike didn't happen. Well, where is he now?

And the media is saying, well, he can't really do anything.

He can't really -- maybe in a couple of weeks. Really? Maybe in a couple of weeks.

He stopped the train thing from going in to strike. Why isn't he involved this time?

He's Mr. Labor Union.

So I don't know. What's happening. In -- in a normal America, the president would make sure this strike was settled. But wait until you hear what they're asking for. And what they've already turned down.

So for, if it goes four weeks, truckers, rail workers. Warehouses will be overwhelmed, trying to just move everything.

Prices will stay high through the holiday season.

Supply chains will struggle to recover. Holiday shopping season will be lienor, fewer options on the shelf.

Less to spend, because inflation will chip away at your budget again. The economic hit, won't be limited just to higher prices.

Jobs will be lost, as industries scrambling to adapt disruptions. Companies may start to shift operations to avoid reliance on our US ports in the future.

That's great, huh.

Potentially relocating manufacturing or looking to automate more of their processes to reduce reliance on labor.

That will mean fewer jobs for the very workers that are striking today in the long-run.
So when you hear about the port thing. Know, this is a very serious issue.

Not today, but if you want to be prepared. You might not go crazy at a Costco.

Just make sure you have what your family needs, in case things get worse.

Because I have no idea, what will happen.

Okay. So, you know, when you hear what the dock workers are striking for, maybe you think, it's reasonable.

But let's get into the details. They're striking for two big reasons.

One, they want higher pay. Everybody does. They want assurances, that their jobs won't be taken over by machines. By automation. Everybody wants that.

Got it. So on the surface, it sounds reasonable.

Everyone wants better pay. No one wants to lose their job to a robot. But when you start unpacking what they're asking for. And comparing it to the average American worker. And when you consider the long-term effects on our country's economy, especially in competition with China, picture gets a little more complex.

Okay. First, let's talk about the pay raise.

The average longshoreman, the dock workers already make about 100,000 to $200,000 a year. Six figures. Some even earn more when you factor in over time.

Now, if you compare that to the average American worker who pulls in around $56,000 a year. That's quite a gap. Now, they're not not just asking for more.

They are pushing for significant raises. Sometimes ten to 15 percent a year, or even higher, depending on the location and the union negotiations. For someone already making $100,000, that could mean a ten to 15 or 20,000-dollar raise, every year.

Meanwhile, the average American worker, we're lucky to see a two or 3 percent raise. Lucky!

In fact, with inflation running hot, many workers are losing purchasing power. And wages are not keeping pace with inflation and the cost of living.

But it isn't a small pay raise. Over the term of the next six years, they are asking for a 77 percent pay raise, over the six-year life of the contract.

Now, they've been offered a 50 percent increase, and have turned that down.

Now, the -- the dock workers in California, and the west coast, they've got a 34 percent pay raise over the course of their -- their contract.

These guys are asking for 77 percent increase over the next six years.

Been offered 50 percent, and have turned it down, walked away.

Okay. I mean, that -- I mean, that's going to be hard for people to swallow.

And understand, I get it. Dock work is tough. It's physically demanding. It's risky.

It's not an old man's game. But the pay is already far above the national average. And their demands for even more, seem a little out of sync with what most people are experiencing in their lives. And I am for people making as much money as they can, but we're all connected and everyone has to remember, this is a business. All of this stuff has to work for business. Everyone has to win, because if it's just the dock workers, nobody wins.

Even at a 50 percent pay increase, that is going to be passed on to you, in higher costs.

And that's not the real problem. The real problem comes in what their second demand is.

The dock workers want ironclad guarantees, that the ports will not replace any of them, with a machine.

Now, think about that for a moment.

They're asking for a commitment, that even as technology advances, ports won't introduce things like automated cranes, or self-driving trucks or robotics to do the work faster, cheaper, more safely and efficiently. This is a conversation that America and the world should have had 20 years ago, and I talked about it 20 years ago.

And I talked about it every year since. We're going to come to a time, where if you don't know, what the meaning of life is, you're going to be kind of upside down.

Because people are going to start losing their jobs. Maybe we should start looking at the jobs of the future, and start training people for those.

Because the average job is going away. Well, now you're in it.

This is like AI. Should have had -- should have had that discussion 20 years ago.

But now we're all scrambling.

Why?

Because there is no leadership in this country.

That's why. There's no real leader. And without vision, without a leader, with vision. The people will perish. And that's what's happening. So I can sympathize with the dock workers. No one wants to be told, we have a machine that can do your job faster and without breaks, good luck. But here's the thing, automation is happening. Just like AI thousand. It's too late to stop it.

It's happening. So now, we have to figure out, how do we retool instead of just saying, you know what, you're out. How do we retool?

Because if we don't retool, if we are acting like people who said, the horse and buggy have to be kept, we lose.

China, their ports. Have you seen the video, that's circling the world now?

The ports in China are highly automated.

It's like one office. And the whole port runs in one office.

They move goods faster. More efficiently. Than we do.

They have automated cranes. AI-driven systems.

The robots work around the clock.

Minimal human influence.

It is safe safer, faster, cheaper.

This allows China to process millions of more containers, than we do, at a fraction of the cost and time.

Why do you think people buy their products from China? Because through slave labor and now through automation, they can make it cheaper.

If we don't automate our ports, we are putting ourselves in a advantage for a long-term knockout punch.

Global trade is cutthroat.

Companies will ship through countries and ports, that can move their goods faster and cheaper.

And if the US sticks with old, labor intensive methods, shipping companies will look elsewhere, to countries like China. That can get the job done more efficiently. This will mean lost business for US ports.

Fewer goods flowing through our economy. And ultimately, fewer jobs for dock workers in the long run.

We, I'm sorry, gang. Have to automate.

To be able to compete in today's world.

If you're willing to go back and live like the old timey days, where, you know, back in the -- you know, back around the turn of the century, 80 percent live below the poverty line.

Okay. 80 percent of Americans. So if you want to go back to that, that's fine.

But we have a Brave New World, that we are facing now.

And these dock workers are in trouble.

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