RADIOMay 24, 2022

The 'TERRIFYING' way food shortages could end in WORLD WAR

Chaos continues to spread throughout the world, and America’s weakened economy seems less and less equipped everyday to handle it. And situations may worsen soon. Carol Roth, financial expert and author of ‘The War On Small Business,’ joins Glenn to discuss the ripple effects China’s recent COVID lockdowns AND Russia's war in Ukraine could have on the rest of the world’s food supply. ‘We have a 30 day window,’ Roth says, to turn things around. Otherwise we may see massive food shortages in certain areas of the world, then increased chaos, and possibly war….maybe even world war. In this clip, Roth and Glenn discuss the possible scenarios to come…

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Carol Roth. She is the author of The War on Small Business, a former recovering investment banker, as she likes to say.

More and more experts are saying that the U.S. is headed towards a recession. I wanted to get her look at that today. Welcome, Carol.

CAROL: Hey, Glenn, how are you?

And I'm so bummed to hear that Stu spent his vacation, thinking about economic collapse. He's supposed to go to the spa, do some water-skiing.

(laughter)

GLENN: So, you know, in your book, The War on Small Business, you talk about all the things that, you know, the Draconian things that our government did to shut businesses down. Small businesses, et cetera. Also, they did all of this extra spending, and everything else.

And here we are, at the end. And they were trying to avoid a recession. And it looks like we'll get one anyway.

CAROL: This is the key point, Glenn. I'm so glad you brought it up. Because not enough people are speaking about this. This was all for nothing. We were told, we're going to support the market by printing trillions. We're going to throw trillions, into relief. We're going to make all of these decisions. And it's going to help the economy. Well, where are we?

We saw a historic transfer of wealth, from Main Street to Wall Street. Now we're seeing Wall Street giving those gains back. We have huge amounts of inflation. The consumer is hurting. And at the end of the day, we will have an economy, that if it doesn't hit recession, certainly is limping along. So they did all of these things for the outcome, they were ultimately, going to have to go through anyway. It was all for naught.

GLENN: So, Carol, I don't think people understand what is coming yet. And I don't know if you can explain it. This is just my -- just common sense here. Looking -- China is so backed up. What we went through, when we closed our ports. And stopped shipping things.

That was -- that was nursery school, it seems, compared to what we will be seeing, on the horizon. When does this shutdown of any boats, going to and from China, when does that hit us?

CAROL: Well, I certainly think that it has hit us already. And, you know, it will continue to bleed into the numbers.

I think the big question with China, is what's next for China. And what's next for the world. And that's sort of the -- the outside case sonar. There's a really bad case here, that I hopefully, wouldn't want to start with. Sort of the possibility, versus the probability of some sort of a war scenario.

GLENN: Wait. Wait, wait. Why do you say that?

CAROL: Well, if you look at the unrest that's been going on. I certainly don't think that that was just coming out of nowhere. I think the chaos is intentional. I think food insecurity and the starvation of hundreds of millions of people, are going to end up leading to unrest. And we have about a 30-day window. It may or may not know, that the farmers in Ukraine, have been planting and trying to get this wheat crop. Yes. To be able to come to market. The problem is that the Baltic Sea, which is where all the cargo containers are shipped out of. Is completely surrounded by the Russian Navy.

So that has been to come out by about the middle of June. And if we don't, that will send out a domino effect, through all different kinds of countries. You're already seeing a little bit of that like in Sri Lanka. But you will see Kenya. You will see Lebanon. You will see Chad. You will see Nigeria. You will see Cameroon. You will see all these places, with huge populations in many cases, not be able to see their population. We know that that is going to lead to unrest. Many of them, actually, have a lot of weapons.

So what does that mean? They're likely to do. They'll probably try and infringe on somebody else's food supply. And it will just end up in this spiral. Or if we have one of the folks in NATO, try to get involved in this Baltic Sea situation. And Russia doesn't go for that. That could happen. There are so many different moving parts.

And story in the Wall Street Journal over the weekend, is that China is telling members of the Communist Party, to pull everything they have, investments, real estate, from foreign places around the world. Why, Glenn, would China be shoring up the Communist Party, not having exposure to assets around the world? Well, you can connect those dots, right?

GLENN: Gosh, Carol, that is -- that is terrifying. Terrifying. And that -- does that mean here in the United States, all of the land and everything that they own here. They're telling their people, even here, pull it out?

CAROL: This is -- what I read in the journal. There's a piece I will send it to you, because I'm sure you will want to take a deep dive into it. But it sounds like, because of the sanctions that happened with the freezing of not only Russia's reserves, but the confiscation of all of the oligarch's assets. That they're now warning everybody. It doesn't mean that these folks are actually going to comply and do it. And they don't have relatives and Shell companies and what not. That just sends a signal to me. Why would they not want that exposure, unless they were planning to be aggressive and worried, that we might put some kind of sanctions on them. And why would we put some sanction on his China. The whole situational is just -- there's this outlier, you know, within some period of time, that's a bad scenario.

GLENN: So the news that I saw this weekend, is the State Department. Now, the Pentagon is denying it. But the State Department is out of control. The State Department said, there are plans for the U.S. to sink the Russian, Baltic fleet. I mean, that is absolutely an act of war if we're even just helping them target these things. But that seems more probable, if we are looking at the world starving to death.

CAROL: Yeah. It may be trading one level of war for another level of war. And I'm certainly no foreign policy expert. So I'm saying this just as a person reading the news, not with anybody that has any special insight. But that may be what they're thinking. They need to clear that path. They need to get that food out, because the scope of war, that they might have with Russia and all the folks who are aligned against Russia, in trying to starve people, versus the scope that follows these countries around the world, are based in starvation. That may be the tradeoff. Hopefully, they have a month. Some sort of diplomacy here, would go a long way. And I remember when we had a president, that was really good at that. We didn't have these kinds of issues.

GLENN: I will tell you, I've talked to a friend in some place in Africa. And he said, we are not being trained for war in Ukraine.

We are being trained to protect the governments in Africa. Because they're going to -- they're all going to come down. That kind of chaos -- first of all, that's not what our military should be doing. But this kind of chaos, what will that do to us?

CAROL: Yeah, unfortunately, that's the kind of scenario, because of the proximity. Not for us, but for our allies to the centers of all these things happening. It seems, when we have these really big wars, all the roads lead back to Europe. And Europe is in already a bad situation. So it seems like that may be the convergence of where that is. And we get dragged in potentially that way. And we all know that war is not a good thing for our national debt. For our community. For our economy. There's no good comes out of it. But it certainly seems like, that the powers that be that want to create chaos and support some sort of dislocation in the world. That they're doing a really good job of sussing that out right now.

GLENN: So I said on the air, last week, I'm not -- I would just like to have in the next five years, I would just like to have the money that I -- that I currently have. I don't need to make, you know -- I mean, I would love to make for my retirement, you know, investment that -- that grows.

But I'm so afraid. And I've heard this from so many people. They have no idea, if you leave it in the bank, you lose. If you leave it in the stock market, you're going to lose. At least in the short-term. If I'm 20, or 30, you know, I leave it in the stock market. But if you're my age, going on 60, you're not leaving it in the stock market.

But where do you put it?

CAROL: You know, this is a conversation that is being had. You know, with everybody. Even people at the top most echelons of society, that have all kinds of cash, and will really be in a fine place. Don't have the perfect idea, where to put it, because of all those risks. And certainly, again, this is not financial advice. But there are, you know, some things that you can be at least researching and thinking about.

One thing I wrote about on TheBlaze site a couple weeks ago, in response to a question, Glenn. Was something that is a savings bond called I Bonds. I don't know if you've heard of these. But this is a government series savings bonds, that sort of combines a face value and an inflation-adjusted parameter to it. And it adjusts every six months. But right now, it's at 9.62 percent, and that will adjust based on inflation. Now, the rub is, if you go online, and I believe it's TreasuryDirect.gov. You have to open an account with the Treasury if you want to do it online. The cap is $10,000, per Social Security number per year.

And then if you do the electronic -- the paper piece, which you can do through the IRS. It's S a 5,000-dollar cap. That at least -- if you have a few years. Because you get a penalty. And it gets after -- you have to keep it in for at least three years. And it does readjust. But if you want to have at least some inflation protection, you find look into something like that, certainly as a hedge to your portfolio. As we've talked about many times. Having, you know, precious metals. Having gold and silver as a hedge. Particularly for that downside scenario. I think is really important. If you have the opportunity to invest in property and land. Some land has tax benefits. I talked to a tax attorney. That's an opportunity.

GLENN: I have to tell you, I think most people are starting to now say, how am I -- Carol, let me take a quick break. Let me come back, and ask you: What does it mean to our economy? If we hit 6-dollar -- which I think we will, this summer. Six-dollar a gallon gasoline. If we hit nine, $10 a gallon of diesel, what does that that do? We'll be back in just a second.

GLENN: We're talking to Carol Roth. Carol, if we have 6-dollar a gallon gasoline for three months, I don't know how the average person makes it.

CAROL: Yeah. It's a really tough scenario. And it's tough on an individual level. And it's tough on the entire economy, which has a spiraling impact. Because we have a 70 percent consumer-based economy.

They are assuming, the fact that we're going to avoid a recession, on the back of the consumer. Which means that your savings are going to go down. Your debt is going to go up. And so they save the economy, by putting the consumer in a bad position.

GLENN: All of --

STU: Yeah.

CAROL: And that's just completely not okay.

Yeah --

STU: I want you to explain that. Say that again. Because I think people really need to understand. The idea of not going into a recession, the fed is intentionally, impoverishing the average American.

That's their -- that's their plan.

CAROL: Yeah. Yes. It's on the back of you. They're looking to the average American consumer, to save them from what they have done. Either way, it's a bad outcome for the consumer.

But if you save them, it's because you have wound down your savings. It's because you've increased your credit card, and other debts. In order to continue to spend, so they can say, look, we were able to save the economy. So it's on your back. We are the ones that are carrying them. And they are not being held accountable, for all of this damage, and all of this destruction, that they have done, with what was entirely intentional, and entirely unavoidable.

GLENN: So I learned this during the collapse of '08. That the West is not mathematically built to -- to tolerate 100 to $120 a barrel for oil, for very long. The whole thing, just all the math just starts to fall apart.

I don't know what we're paying per barrel. But I know what gas is costing. And when -- when rich people are saying, holy cow. The average person is counting their pennies and their nickels and their dollars. And deciding, where to go.

How long does this last before your -- you're spending all your money, just on food and gas?

CAROL: Yeah. I think this is the question of the haves. And have-nots. And we've talked a little about this before. Is that the economists. And the books at the bank, when they talk about the consumer, you know, that's a composite. That's an average that is brought up by the very wealthy that are doing very well. But for, you know, the average American, they're not going to be doing well. And we've already started to see this in the numbers from places like Target and Walmart. In the last quarter. We're sitting on this quarter right now. This is last quarter. People are starting to make these tradeoffs. The things they absolutely need to have. Versus the things that they would like to have. And I think unfortunately, for many Americans, that's going to be the scenario for quite some time. You know, definitely this year. Probably into next year. And depending on what happens on a geopolitical front. Maybe even longer, is that you'll be focused on the necessities. The things that you need to get by. And the rest of that, will go by the wayside.

The only -- the skinniest kid at fat camp, bright spot here, Glenn.

GLENN: The dollar --

CAROL: Well -- in a recession, Glenn, that actually works against us.

GLENN: Okay. Oh, yeah. True.

CAROL: But of all the things that we have, where there's a supply and demand imbalance, at least in food, we may not have choices here. But at least there will be something to eat. That supply/demand imbalance around the world. Again, as we talked about before, means there will be other people, who are facing the same kind of issues. And they're not going to be able to eat.

GLENN: And that includes everybody south of our border. And with an open border, it could get very ugly, very fast.

Carol, thank you so much. I appreciate it.

I think the thing that, really, we all need to take away is the next ten weeks, is crucial.

Do -- does Ukraine -- do the farmers get all of that food out into the Baltic Sea, without Russia obstructing it, or us going to war? If they don't, there is going to be massive starvation in Africa, and all kinds of chaos. So the next ten weeks, pray for the Baltic to open up. So we can get that food, to Africa or wherever it needs, in peace.

Carol Roth, thank you so much. We'll talk again.

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