RADIOApril 21, 2022

SHOCK: Is Biden giving our STRATEGIC OIL to Europe?!

The European Union is set to declare a FULL embargo on Russian oil after France’s upcoming presidential election, which could cost the price per barrel of oil to skyrocket yet again — maybe up to 185 DOLLARS, JP Morgan has warned. And the worst part? With China, Turkey, and India buying whatever oil supplies Europe won’t take, it’s unlikely this embargo will hurt Russia. But it WILL affect you. Plus, a new report alleges Biden is not only releasing oil from our strategic reserves to help Americans at the pump, but the administration could be giving that oil to Europe too. So, does anyone else find it INSANE that we’d willingly sacrifice so much of our oil RESERVES while the threat of a World War looms…?

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: All right. Before I get into the strategic oil reserve, let me just give you something that Reuters reported last night. The EU is set to declare a full embargo on Russian oil, after this week's French election. Now, that election is happening, I believe this weekend. Is it not?

And it's between Macron, and Le Pen. It is close. I mean, remember last time, do you happen to know those numbers? The last time Macron ran against Le Pen. Wasn't it like 80/20 or something?

STU: I want to say it 70/30. 80/20, something in that general -- once they have a big election, like to go to a runoff. In that runoff, it adds up to 100 percent because there's only two candidates and everyone has to vote. Pick somebody.

So it was a blowout though. It was not close. It was like, I can't believe she got into the runoff, was the reaction to it. And then the runoff was not close. That's not the case this time.

GLENN: Yeah. It's 45/55, Macron. And once again, the elites are deciding an election. You know, in World War I. Right before we went into World War I, Wilson said, as his campaign slogan. I'm not going to get you into war. Within just a few weeks after, he was in office.

For his second term, after the election, we were at war. He sent the troops to war. The elites always think they know better. And so they will keep things from you. And that's exactly what the European Union is doing, with the French people. They don't want to upset the election, because it's so close. And what they're about to do, would push it in Le Pen's favor. They are about to declare a total embargo on Russian oil. They're supposedly, according to Reuters, going to do this next week.

This will cause a massive spike, in the price of oil.

I'll give that to you, here in a second. But first, let me ask you, is this really hurting Russia?

Because they've found other buyers for all of their oil.

They have found buyers in China and Turkey and India. And these people are saying that if this happens, they'll buy more.

So they have remarkably, according to JP Morgan, the Russian crude exports, are actually averaging 360,000 barrels above preinvasion volumes.

Huh. Now they're saying, that they're going to cut -- Europe will cut, all of that.

And when they do, according to JP Morgan Chase, the price of Brent crude oil, $185 a barrel.

$185 a barrel. That because of inflation, is about where the price of oil was. About 125. For how long, in 2007 or eight?

This is what caused the collapse of our economy.

It was oil prices. The entire western world is -- is built, on the back of energy prices, being no more than $100 a barrel. Every time it's over $100 a barrel, it hurts the economy. And it stops it. If you can get it down to -- what did Trump have it down to, like $60 a barrel? When you get it down there, you're starting to hurt Russia. But high prices help Russia, Saudi Arabia, and hurt us. The entire West. At $185 a barrel, I don't even know what gas prices would be. But we're probably all paying $5 plus, California, good luck.

How long can the Western world survive that?

Now, here's what's interesting. India, and China, and Turkey, have already said, they would take this oil.

Europe is not thinking about just pulling all of the oil, and stopping it cold Turkey. They are thinking about maybe doing it more slowly. Over a period of months. Well, that gives Russia time, to make all the deals.

That -- who wins in that scenario? You don't have oil. They have buyers.

How it -- what is that? By the way, the Russian break even, for oil, is less than $10 a barrel.

So they're talking also about price caps, we'll only pay $20 a -- you're still giving them $10 on every barrel. I mean, I don't understand.

You're just hurting yourself with this. And, you know, I'm beginning to wonder. You remember Biden had the emergency strategic oil reserve. Petroleum reserve.

And he said, he was going to release 180 million barrels of oil. 180 million barrels of oil, from the strategic petroleum reserve. That's 1 million barrels a day, for 180 days. And it would end shockingly, just right after the midterm elections. Okay? So he was going to do that. And remember what he said. I'm going to do this, because I want to help the average person at the gas pump. Well, somehow or another, the definition of an emergency, and helping you, now includes making a profit at the expense of American consumers. Because sooner or later, a real emergency will hit, and we will need the fuel, according to Matt Smith, oil analyst and commodity data firm Kepler, we are now exporting our strategic oil reserve crude, and we've been doing it since last November.

So when Biden said, we're going to release some, and it's going to help the average person. No, that's not true. Unless you -- unless you consider the citizens of Europe, the citizens of the United States.

Why didn't we know this? Why is he doing this?

This is really not going to help -- I mean, unless he's buying the support, from Europe. Why would we buy the support from Europe?

Support for what?

STU: Two years ago, what were oil prices?

GLENN: I don't know.

STU: Today, it's 100 -- what is it $104.

GLENN: Four. Yeah.

STU: Two years ago today, oil prices, $16.94.

GLENN: Sixteen dollars!

STU: Now, an asterisk, in that, we were in the worst part of the pandemic at that point. Which was a massive. That is the lowest it went. But that was two years ago, exactly today. $16.94. It's now over $100. And, you know, once we rebounded off that -- the real catastrophic drop of the pandemic, it was around $40 after that. And now we're at 104.

GLENN: Forty to $60 is a dream.

STU: Yeah. Forty to sixty, that's where it was throughout 2019, most of 2017. A little higher at times in 2018. But had leveled off, between 50 and $60, before the pandemic hit. And then, of course, all the way down to $16. That was amazing. I wish I would have bought oil back then.

GLENN: So, Stu, can you tell me what exactly is happening, with the strategic oil reserve being released some of it, at least. To Europe.

That's not for Europe. That's for us. And that is actually not for price relief. That is to run our ships, our Navy, our Air Force.

STU: Well, it's supposed to be certainly.

GLENN: Exactly right. Okay?

And then we seem to be going closer and closer. Remember, Joe Biden said, I don't want to do anything that's going to look like we're supporting Ukraine in any military fashion. We're not going to replace those planes for Poland, if they do that. We're not going to be involved in that at all, okay? Because that would be akin to an act of war. He was very clear on that, wasn't he?

STU: It seems like it. No, it seemed like it.

GLENN: Yesterday, NBC News cited five U.S. officials, that said a -- a new package, a new arms package, which will bring our military aid to 3 billion dollars, is going to be announced. Listen to this. We are now selling them howitzers, antiaircraft systems, anti-ship missiles, armed drones, armored trucks, personnel carriers, and even tanks!

Now, that sounds to me, as bad, if not worse, than some old planes, from the 1960s. That we weren't even going to do.

Why are we doing this? By the way, Russia sent a warning, to us. That if we start delivering these, quote, most sensitive weapon systems to Ukraine, it will bring unpredictable consequences.

I don't think they're unpredictable. You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. I don't think it's unpredictable. Are we -- are we shooting ourself in the foot, by giving away our oil reserve?

Even selling our oil reserve. Just touching our oil reserves, at this point.

STU: It's crazy.

GLENN: While we're antagonizing the bigger bully. And maybe the biggest bully on the block.

STU: With over 6,000 nuclear weapons. Yeah. That seems like a problem to me. Now, if you're going -- we know the back sort of -- the backstory, as far as the reporting goes, seems to indicate, basically, we're trying to say to Europe, you guys need to stop buying Russian fossil fuels.

And we are -- they say, well, what are we going to use? And this is part of our answer. Right? Well, we'll send you some from our strategic oil reserves, to help, you know, lower the burden. As you --

GLENN: How about this? We just open up our system. You know, yeah. It's going to take us six months. But we're already six months into this. We're going to open our systems again. We're going to start pumping it like we were. And we'll sell it to you, for $60 a barrel. And we'll leave our strategic oil reserve alone. I mean, it's really getting simple.

STU: It's fascinating to watch this. You mentioned this before. Wasn't he really clear about this?

And he was really clear, when he said, that we were not going to do anything that was going to escalate us into war. But to say he was clear, really about any of this. Overall, is really difficult to say. He's gone back and forth over and over again.

Remember, this guy ran a platform, saying, we're going to get rid of fossil fuels. We're going to eliminate them. We're going to be net zero. All of these things he said to environmentalists to get their vote. Then he gets in front of the -- the public, and people say, hey, you keep saying, you're going to get rid of all these fossil fuels, now we're having an oil crisis. What's the deal? Your gas prices are going through the roof. It's hurting families. And he says, we haven't done anything. We haven't done anything to stop production. What are you talking about?

Now, there's a court ruling, that say, they have to open up new leases. Not their action. The court said, you have to open up these new leases. So the environmentalists are mad. And he's saying, again, we're not doing anything. This isn't us. So they've gone back and forth on this, so many times, because they're telling the left, that they're absolutely attacking fossil fuels. And then telling the American people, we're not doing anything on that front, at all. All these oil companies are just, oh, so greedy. And that's the problem here.

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