RADIODecember 02, 2022

The TERRIFYING & AMAZING realities of brain chip implants

Elon Musk’s company Neuralink recently announced it hopes to begin human trials in six months. Neuralink develops ‘implantable brain-computer interfaces,’ or more simply, chips for your brain. And the health benefits could be AMAZING, Glenn says, especially for those with brain injuries. But the downsides of technological developments like this one can be TERRIFYING, too...especially if they're placed into the wrong hands.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: By the way, did you hear the Neuralink thing? In human testing now.

This is -- gang, I know -- if you're a long-time listener. I know 20 years ago, you thought, I was just a babbling madman. When I would talk to you about the singularity. And talk to you about what tech was going to be like.

Ten years ago. Same thing. Five years ago, maybe you started going, I don't know. I mean, I guess people are talking about it.

Two years ago, same thing.

You need to understand the singularity. Because it's on our doorstep. And that is through Elon Musk. And neural link.

It will be heralded as a great thing. And believe me, as a father of a daughter who has had strokes, this would change her. It would make her probably whole. Because the problem with strokes is the pathways for information. If you think of the brain as a road map, there are bridges that are out. And so, it takes longer for information to go from one place to another. And sometimes, it can't go there at all.

STU: Right.

GLENN: What neural link promises to do, is to bridge from one part of the brain to the other part of the brain. Electronically.

STU: Incredible.

GLENN: It's incredible. Absolutely incredible.

STU: And has the potential to be a miracle, if it were --

GLENN: A miracle. People. If you had a stroke, you could go back to -- the promise is -- the hope is, back to the way you were before the stroke. I mean, that's -- that's a miracle.

However, it also would connect to the internet. And it is Elon Musk's way of saying, we've got to come up with something fast and cheap. Because this is what the left is going to do. And people want to control. And there's got to be something out there, that will be a good version of this. Where if you want to learn Spanish, you just download it. I mean, it's very matrix. It's here. Tonight dismiss this. It's here.

STU: Is neural link the same as AI.

GLENN: No. It's the beginning.

STU: Neural link is more health type reasons, isn't it?

GLENN: No. It's to digitize the brain for health reasons.

STU: Okay.

GLENN: But that's step one. The other steps, as it goes, links you to the internet.

So you can download and upload information. And remember, that's a pipe in your head. This is when the -- this is when economic forum says, yes.

We've lost some privacy. People know what I'm doing. Know where I am. Know what I'm thinking. Even what I'm dreaming. But it's all worth it, okay? That's what they mean.

Because you will be -- the government or these institutions or whatever. Will be able to go into your head. And know what you're thinking. Because you're using the back bone of the internet to think and research. And it can go into your head and retrieve dreams. It's extraordinarily dangerous.

STU: To think targeted advertising uses this. Like every time I think about Taco Bell. I get a coupon from Taco Bell. I mean --

GLENN: Or all the times you don't think about Taco Bell. And yet, you're thinking about Taco Bell.

STU: Should be.

There can't be more times I'm thinking about Taco Bell. That's not possible.

GLENN: If you're like most Americans. Have you heard what McDonald's is doing? I want one. I want one. Anyway, if you're like most Americans, you can probably spend a significant amount of your time just thinking about how to make more money. Or at least save more money, back more than you currently do.

Nothing is wrong with that. It's good to be aware how your financial house is holding up. And especially about the business of trying to make it more secure. Especially in this economy.

This is where you need to give American Financing the call. If you own a home, let one of their dedicated mortgage specialists help you examine your options. Right now, you can literally be saving hundreds of dollars per month. Maybe as much as a thousand. What would you do with an extra 12 grand per year. What could you pay off. With an extra 12 grand a year.

For over two decades, American Financing has been helping people just like you find ways to make their finances work for them. Call American Financing. 800-906-2440. It's AmericanFinancing.net.

JEFFY: American Financing. NMLS 182334. Www.NMLScomsumeraccess.org.
(OUT AT 9:48AM)

GLENN: So I want to talk to you a little bit about this rail strike. And I don't know about you. But, I mean, I'm not passionate about --

STU: Right.

GLENN: -- either side.

However, however, I do think --

STU: I'm worried about the consequences of it.

GLENN: Well, I'm also. I think I'm actually -- if it is, as is presented. Which I don't believe anything anymore.

But if it is as presented, these train companies can't let their employees have a few extra days for sick-leave?

STU: Yeah. I'm sure it's more complicated than that. That's the story from the media. I just don't want them to have a sick day. They interviewed a guy. I'm at home with the flu. And I have to have vacation time. Obviously, that's not the way it should be. Is that the only issue? Really?

GLENN: Yeah, so I'm not patient about it, because I don't believe either side. However, a couple of things.

One, the media said, Joe Biden solved this right before the election.

STU: Right. So he had all the preelection benefits of solving this crisis. And he found out later, well, no. It wasn't real.

GLENN: We actually knew. Everyone knew. But only sources said, he didn't solve it. He passed the buck, and it will happen in December.

The other thing that is quite concerning on this, is Mr. Most -- biggest union supporter --

STU: Job.

GLENN: Supporter of any president in the history of the United States, he also bails out the railroads all the time. Okay?

So government money is going to the business of railroads as well. He can't get a few sick days? This guy is toothless. Absolutely toothless.

STU: Completely incompetent. Or something else is going on.

GLENN: Yeah. And the media, again, the biggest problem, because you don't know what a rail strike would do to you and the country. In quick fashion.
(OUT AT 9:58AM)
HOUR 3

GLENN: I have to tell you, there's some science news that is absolutely mind-boggling, that is out today. I just want to take a break, and just show you a glimpse of what we're dealing with, and what's coming our way.

We do that in 60 seconds. You ever find yourself just waiting for the other shoe to drop? Sometimes I do. Yeah. Sometimes.

Not a good place to be in. The next crisis is right around the corner. It's there. There's always something. This is to remind you, how important it is, to have a supply of emergency food.

The best place to get that is from My Patriot Supply. We were just talking about the railroad strike. Congress just passed a bill to the unions to accept this deal.

It's going to go to the Senate, Bernie Sanders says he's going to stop it. I doubt he will. However, if he did, really bad. Really bad things. You can't have a rail strike now. It would shut the economy down. How do you get your food? If it's not shipped first on rail and then on trucks? My Patriot Supply is there. May I highly recommend that we are so unstable now as a planet, that it would be good to have you know four weeks emergency food.

Right now, you can save 25 percent on each four-week emergency food kit you need.

You'll get at least one for each member of your family. Getting the food doesn't mean you're losing hope. It means you're eliminating the fear. And seeing your family suffer. Once you have that out of the way, you don't worry about things. You won't regret it. Please, go to preparewithGlenn.com. That's preparewithGlenn.com.

Do it now.

Prepare with Glenn.com.

So, Stu, there are two stories I barely understand. Let me start with the one that I'm really a little foggy on. For any mammal, the loss of the Y chromosome should mean the loss of males and the demise of the species. However, the Amami spiny rat manages without a Y chromosome. And has puzzled biologists for decades. Now, a Japanese scientist and her colleagues have shown that one of the rat's normal chromosomes effectively evolved into a new male sex chromosome. I hate to get all sciencey. Because I don't know how these rats identify. I don't know any of their pronouns or anything else.

STU: Oh, no.

GLENN: So the reason why this is important, is because the Y chromosome seems to be getting weaker and weaker. And in a lot of mammals, including man.

STU: Hmm.

GLENN: And once you lose the Y, then what happens? You've only got females.

End of the species. So that's why they're looking into this. Because they believe that we are headed for the same kind of thing.

STU: The end of the species. I think just involving car accidents.

GLENN: Oh, my gosh. Only women drivers. It would be crazy. And women presidents and CEOs.

STU: Gosh, just shut the thing down.

GLENN: Lord, please come down.

Anyway, so --

STU: So stupid. That's largely just to piss off Sara in the other room.

GLENN: Oh, it is. Largely?

100 percent.

STU: And, of course, the fact that it's true.

GLENN: Right.

So the next story is a quantum computer has simulated a wormhole for the first time.

Now, do you know what a wormhole is?

STU: It's a space thing. It's like a sciencey space thing.

GLENN: Yeah. So it's like you take a piece of paper, and you fold it in half. And then you I think fold it again. And you put a little hole in it.

And you would see, that there would be two holes, in the piece of paper.

STU: Yeah. Looks like a mask. With the eye holes.

GLENN: In fact, it's almost the perfect mask.

Okay. So -- and probably Fauci would have me wear this.

Anyway, so a wormhole is a way to collapse the distance in between those two holes. Okay?

In space.

STU: Uh-huh.

GLENN: And then they are right -- you go through one hole, and you're right there. Because they're next to each other.

STU: Right. Instantly.

GLENN: If space is folding. So that's the idea of a wormhole. You could travel great distances through that. Quickly.

So this is just been a theory. Scientists with a quantity uncle computer, have just simulated a wormhole for the very first time.

Now, it gets very complex, because they say, it was a holographic. But it's not exactly a holograph. It's -- they're just -- they just simplified things by taking gravity out of the equation, which gets into i Phone and the theory of relativity. So they had to have something that took relativity out. And see if they could simulate this. Well, they did. And what this means is, you could have, without any wires, cables, Wi-Fi, nothing!

You can take something, digitally, and send it from let's say, my desk, to a desk in London. Paragraph and it would exist in both places.

And you could close one of the doors, and it would either come back to me, and only be here. Or I could close my door, and it would be in London.

They just did this. This changes everything!

This changes everything. This is -- you remember i Phone when he was -- they talked to him about quantum physics. He said, God doesn't play dice.

Meaning, there is no super -- there is no super position of -- of a molecule, or I don't even know. Of a cubit they're new called. It can't be both positive and negative. It can't be both one and a zero.

But quantum says, yes, it can. That led him to say, God doesn't play dice.

It doesn't work that way. Remember, the theory of relativity is only a theory. It's the best theory we have on how things work.

Quantum buildings up, and says, I don't think the basic soup -- I don't think it really goes with any of those physics.

I think it breaks down at some point, and starts behaving completely illogically.

This shows that Einstein may have been wrong. Maybe God is playing dice.

This -- this -- this -- the things that we have on the horizon, are so ground-breaking. And just quantum computing. All of this stuff, will change life. In ways we -- it's like we're standing in the 12 hundreds. And trying to imagine today.

But it's going to happen in the next 50 years.

STU: Do we have any idea, where this would end up? Like, what would be the endgame of this type of technology --

GLENN: The biggest thing of quantum computing, is you will probably solve cancer in a week. You will solve these problems that cannot be solved.

Because it can model a million different things, all at the same time. So remember, Einstein -- Edison said, you know, I didn't find a -- a -- I didn't fail a thousand times. I found a thousand ways, the lightbulb doesn't work.

That will -- you'll only fail -- you'll fail and succeed, one time.

Because you'll try all of the combinations, all at once.

STU: Hmm.

GLENN: And you'll have the answer.

STU: It feels like, there are so many things right now, on the fringes of science. Like where we are really -- where scientists are -- are playing, right?

They're at the very edges of understanding. Where they can go. But see the path forward. You know some of these problems like this one. Are just beginning to be solved. And there are so many different directions. Whether we talked about the singularity. Or whether it's quantum computing.

Or all sorts of different technologies. That it feels like, one of these is going to hit in a way, that totally changes the world, almost immediately.

GLENN: But in a way, let's look at the telephone for a minute. Put yourself back at Alexander who can't mean bell's time. Alexander Graham Bell comes up with this, this is great. Look at this. No one is going to have a telephone for a long time?

STU: That's what they say about everything. Even electricity.

GLENN: They say, I'll go to the town square, that has electricity. And I'll be able to call Washington, if I needed to talk to the president, if it was an emergency. They were thinking like that. They would have never thought. Think of the phone today.

It's no longer cordless. I mean, it's no longer corded.

STU: Right.

GLENN: It doesn't work with -- with wires. It doesn't -- it's a television. It's a camera.

I mean --

STU: It's no longer really even for phone conversations.

GLENN: Right.

STU: And that's I think a really interesting example for how this goes. Think of singularity for a second. Eventually, we merge with machines. My very terrible understanding of it. Eventually, we merge with computers. Where we're able to access information, instantly. Because we have maybe a chip in our head or whatever.

That allows us --

GLENN: Right. And we also have nanobot technology, in our bloodstream, that is keeping you alive. You don't have to take medicine anymore. The nanobots are programmed to take care of your body. And it repairs itself, through technology. Which is connected to AI. A giant machine, outside of your body.

STU: Right. So you're one with AI. You're one with machines. You're a hybrid person.

GLENN: That's the singularity.

STU: That's the singularity.

If you think about, let's say for information purposes. You want to get an answer something. In this world of the singularity, you want to know who is you know the president of France in 2004, right?

It would instantly, you would be able to access that information instantly, inside your brain.

GLENN: Yeah. Right now, you would have to go to Google, open up Google, and type in your question.

STU: Right.

GLENN: The singularity, where it would be imagined to be used at its highest level. Who was the president of France?

Oh, it was so-and-so.

STU: Right. You would know immediately.

GLENN: The minute you think it, the answer is there. Because you're connected to everything.

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