RADIOApril 07, 2022

PROOF Hunter Biden’s sketchy deals were true ALL ALONG

John Solomon, CEO & Editor-in-Chief of Just the News, recently underwent a thorough investigation by The Hill for articles he had published concerning Hunter Biden's sketchy business deals overseas. But, Solomon tells Glenn, the news publication found NOTHING factually false with his reporting, which proves what we’ve known for over a year now: What Glenn (and many others) have told you about Hunter Biden is TRUE. Solomon provides the details to his latest damning story on the president’s son, and he reminds us that this corruption goes far beyond Hunter: these deals criminalize JOE Biden, too…

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Let me -- let me start with something that has come out just a few days ago. And it revolves around John Solomon. John Solomon is a -- an award-winning journalist. He has been in the business forever. And he has been horribly smeared by tech, and by the mainstream media. For telling the truth.

He just published a statement, because he's been under investigation, at the Hill, where he was hired to be the main guy to run their digital work. And he started printing stories about Ukraine and about Hunter Biden. And what was going on. And also, the laptop. So the Hill said, then we got to get rid of him. We're going to have to review everything that he does and says. Well, the Hill has published an update to review all of the work that he did in Ukraine. His reporting and other articles. They did not find a conflict of interest. Also, the Hill's newsroom review did not identify a single factual error in any of his columns. Indeed, after months of digging into claims from liberal media, and impeachment witnesses, that my reporting was false, the Hill found nothing false in my reporting. They didn't interview him. But why would you do that, when you're trying to get to the truth? Why would you interview the principle of person involved?

STU: Seems like too much work.

GLENN: Yeah. It does. But it doesn't matter. They have cleared all of his reporting. Now, how much damage has this done? To John, I don't think very much. Because he started justthenews.com. And I will tell you, it is a go-to source every day for me. You want real journalism. Real reporting, justthenews.com does it. John Solomon joins us now. Hi, John.

JOHN: Hey, good to be with you guys.

GLENN: Yeah. Congratulations.

JOHN: Thank you. Thank you. Listen, you're only as good as the next story.

GLENN: I know. I know.

JOHN: The truth of the matter is the avalanche of facts that were held behind the dam of censorship. Which, by the way, at your Reagan dinner speech at CPAC, you really hit it on the head with this is the danger of this censorship. But you know what, the dam is breaking. And the facts are flowing and overrunning the dam now. And, soon, the American people are going to know the truth in spite of the news media, and that's a good thing for all of us.

GLENN: So just so our audience knows. Because I think these are all -- these are earth-shattering, now all confirmed. Top Ukrainian justice officials says, the U.S. ambassador gave him a do not prosecute list. That's huge. Been denied over and over again. The ambassador is clearly a liar on this. Senior Ukrainian official says, he opened a probe into U.S. election interference. As Russian collusion fades, Ukrainian plot to help Clinton marriages. U.S. embassy pressed Ukraine to drop probe of George Soros during the 2016 election. Joe Biden's 2020, Ukrainian nightmare. A closed probe is revived. Ukrainians to U.S. prosecutors. Why don't you want our evidence on the Democrats? How Obama White House engaged Ukraine to give Russia collusion narrative an early boost. Ukrainian embassy confirms DNC contractor, solicited Trump dirt in 2016. God. FBI warned early and often, that Manafort file might be fake. But they used it anyway. How Muller deputy Andrew Weissmann's offer to an oligarch could boomerang on the DOJ. I mean, this just goes on and on. Those stories, somebody has to pay a price. Because those people are still in -- this administration. Many of them.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: And doing possibly, this or worse, because nobody has paid a price.

JOHN: Yeah. You couldn't have said it better, Glenn. That's really -- and all of that smoke. All of those stories and the counterattacks against me and Peter Schweizer. Think about this. There were people in the news media, calling Peter Schweizer, a conspiracy theorist. This guy is the best researcher in American history. He doesn't do it any better. But, you know what, all of that incoming fire, was to keep us from the truth of what we really wanted to get, which was that Hunter Biden was running an influence peddling scheme, enriching his family, cashing in on his father's day. And the other day, I put together a story that I think is my favorite one of the last four or five years.

It looks at how, as the war is beginning in Ukraine. The first war, when Russia invaded in 2014, on Biden/Obama spots. As they're taking over Crimea. Hunter Biden is sitting with his business partner, saying, all right. Let's get one oligarch on each side of this conflict, and let's go make some money.

So he goes to Yelena Baturina, the billionaire, Russian oligarch, and then he goes to Mykola Zlochevsky, the Burisma owner, and they're working to get both of them to pay them lots of money. And they actually write the middle of this scheme. That's really what it is. This is going to be life-changing for us. Meaning the amount of money they're going to get. As long as Ukraine doesn't fall to Russia, before we get our money. They literally knew they were hedging a bet on the war to enrich the Biden machinery. And you go through all the emails. Hunter Biden is on a first name basis with the Russian oligarch. He's working for a company that his father's own administration considers corrupt. It's all okay, because it was a great way for them to make money. The idea that Hunter Biden, the vice president's son is profiteering off a Russian war on Ukraine, the first one, is really the ultimate thing that all those people who are attacking us, have been trying to hide. They didn't want that story out there.

GLENN: So, John, by the way, congratulations, that is a tremendous story. The -- the oligarch, the Russian oligarch, is that the Moscow mayor's wife.

JOHN: Sure was. You're right. Yeah. The one that -- a few months ago. Or maybe a year ago. All the Democrats and their Democratic media allies are saying, that there's no evidence that Hunter Biden was in contact with it. It had nothing to do with it. The only evidence after that was that Ron Johnson and Craig Chuck Grassley (phonetic) showed a $3.5 million payment from that -- well, we just put a new document. It is the board minutes. One of Hunter Biden's company. It's called Burnham. According to Burnham, Hunter Biden was a vice president. Devon Archer, his convicted sidekick, is the head of it.

In this board minutes, in the spring of 20 -- plus, summer of 2014, they boasted that Yelena Baturina didn't give them 3.5 million. She gave them $200 million. That is a document, that the FBI seized. A document that FBI has put into court files. Good luck trying to find any mainstream media that was willing to print that. But Hunter Biden was calling Baturina by her first name, Yelena. Meeting with her at a hotel. Scheming up ideas to tap her money for real estate deals and other things. A cocoa initiative in Latin America, and when he's talking about the cocoa initiative. Him and Devon Archer joked, maybe we can get some money for Petro Poroshenko, the Ukrainian president. By the way, Ukrainian president who fired the prosecutor, at Joe Biden's request. Hunter Biden was on a first name basis. A year ago, the Democrats are telling us, there was nothing that connected us. They were lying.

GLENN: So, John, may I take you into possibly, you have information on this. But probable speculation. What -- so what is happening, really in Ukraine, now? I mean, this is -- I believe that, you know, Putin -- I don't know. Misjudged. Or whatever. And went into Ukraine. And there's nothing bogus there. But with all of the -- with all of the facts and all of the really nasty stuff, really tied directly to Biden and Clinton there, is there anything else, do you think, possibly going on? Is evidence being destroyed? Is there anything?

JOHN: Yeah. Probably not. It's hard to erase evidence today. Right? Because there's so many digital copies upon digital copies. And someone has hacked them somewhere along the way. Listen, I think the war -- the second invasion of Ukraine on Joe Biden's watch. Because the first one also occurs on his watch, when he was VP in charge of the region, is a reflection that -- of three things. One, that Vladimir Putin has always thought Joe Biden to be weak. So if you're going to do something, you always want to do it on the weak guy's watch. The second part is, Devon Nunez said this on my television show last night. And it's really resonated in my mind, all night. Into the morning today.

He said, that listen, the greatest crime of the Russia collusion scandal, the effort by Hillary Clinton to hang a fake story on Donald Trump, is that it handicapped two or three years of the presidency of Donald Trump. And Donald Trump has an opportunity to realign the relations between Russia and Ukraine.

He was willing to give lethal aid to Ukraine, which Obama was too chicken to do. He was willing to sanction Putin. And he probably would have been willing to get a sort of grand bargain between the two sides. That would lower the tensions. But because Russia collusion took Russia off the table, for a president, he and his team couldn't execute a peace to strength policy. And as a result, Joe Biden gets in. And now we're doing peace to appeasement. And we see what happens when we do peace to appeasement. The European model. The bullies like Putin get aggressive. And we sit back, and we're counterpunching it best. I think what Devin Nunes was trying to say. Is all these scandals that were faked by the media, kept President Trump from maybe creating an Alaskan peace solution, like he did in the Middle East, with the Abrahamic Accords. Very interesting way to look at the last five years of history.

GLENN: All right. Back with John Solomon. If you can hang with me, give me one minute. We'll be back with John Solomon. Author of Fall-out. And CEO, editor and chief of justthenews.com.

GLENN: So John Solomon, from justthenews.com. We are now hearing that, oh, the laptop is true. It's real. It's crazy! But they're -- the White House is still denying that Biden had anything to do with it. They're all -- all these things are now verified. All the really important things are verified, that he was making money, and he knew his son was involved in all of these things. Laws. Big laws were broken just in their financial goings on. Between hunter and Joe Biden. But you're not hearing anyone in the press -- they're all throwing Hunter Biden under the bus. But making sure that everybody knows. But the president is completely clean.

JOHN: Ron Johnson used the Watergate term over the weekend. He used it to get an interview this morning. What the media is engaged in is a limited modified hangout, which is, they're going to now give you some ground, and acknowledge that the false reality that they have created is not totally true. But they're not going to give us the whole truth until the next shoe falls. That's a great public relation strategy that we saw happened again in the Nixon years. I think he's right. Which is, right now, they went from Hunter Biden did nothing wrong. To, oh, he's got a lot of problems. But there's no evidence that Joe Biden did anything. I want to object to that picture that they're portraying right now. We know from the documents that we just made public a couple days ago, on this oligarch story, that Joe Biden agreed to a dinner with his son, where the Russian oligarch, Yelena Baturina was being invited, along with her mayor husband. Moscow mayor husband.

The top senior executive at Burisma was invited. And some Kazakhstan oligarchs were invited. Joe Biden attended that dinner. That's not in dispute. That is facilitating his son's foreign policy. Joe Biden took Hunter Biden on Air Force 2 in 2013, and met with the Chinese businessman from the Communist Party who helped Hunter Biden set up his China fund. Joe Biden is listed as the big guy. Entitled to 10 percent, on the 2017CFC Chinese deal. Joe Biden is far more involved. And the media is just not acknowledging that yet. But I have a funny feeling, when the indictment comes out. We're going to see Joe Biden's name a lot more clearly in the story line.

GLENN: What makes you say that?

JOHN: Well, listen, you can't tell the story, with the operation, without pointing out that the reason Hunter Biden wielded this influence to make this money, was he was promising access to his dad. There's an amazing document, Glenn, that came out in 2020, that no one noticed.

We grabbed it out of the file. Peter Schweizer's operation that I did. It was from one of the business partners. A John Galanis, who worked with Hunter Biden along with his son for many years. And he gets convicted if a tribal scheme, where Hunter Biden walks away. But he writes the court, under penalty of perjury, in an affidavit, in 2020, and said, listen, at the end of the day, Hunter Biden told my family, they were running an influence peddling scheme. Let me read exactly. Jason Galanis gave his interest in this company that the -- Hunter Biden was in. Burnham, to Archer on the prospect, that Archer and Hunter Biden would continue to attract foreign oligarchs on the promise of high-level political contacts. He then goes to call the operation, a political influence peddling operation. That is one of Hunter Biden's own business partner saying, we all know what was going on. Joe Biden can't escape that story line, when -- if and when the indictment comes down.

GLENN: Do you think we'll see something before the election? Or is it going to take the Republicans, taking over, before we see it?

JOHN: Great question. Right? Listen. Chuck Rasni and John Ron Johnson (phonetic) continued to make incredible information. Last night, they had an amazing speech, where they put out a whole bunch of new China stuff. And jaw dropping.

But here -- here's the thing. Right now, the activity before the grand jury in Delaware is very fast, rapid, intense. It's out of pace that you normally see, when an indictment is only a couple of months or a couple weeks out. It looks very much like the activity the grand jury had, with John Durham last summer, before he dropped the Sussmann and Igor Danchenko indictment last fall. So it looks like they're moving to that point of trying to secure an indictment. No one knows what a prosecutor can do. What the grand jury will decide. But the activity suggests that an indictment is in the near often. And I think that will give us the sort of visibility and accountability into what the government now knows.

GLENN: Hmm. John, thank you so much. Thanks for everything you do, really.

JOHN: Honor to be on your show. Thank you. Listen, your speech at CPAC was one of the most important speeches given in that long conference in a long time. And I just want to -- I sat in that audience, I watched you and Tulsi Gabbard back-to-back, and I walked away thinking, they have it right. America can't be America if we continue repressing free speech. So thank you for what you said that night.

GLENN: Wow. You bet. Thank you. John Solomon from justthenews.com. Justthenews.com. More in a second.

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?

Dershowitz SLAMS ‘expert’ lies in explosive trans surgery debate

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