RADIOJune 16, 2023

These numbers PROVE Americans are SICK & TIRED of far-left states

In 2021, California lost over 330 THOUSAND residents…and with those residents, the Golden State lost over 29 billion dollars in income too. The numbers are not much better for New York, Massachusetts, or New Jersey, either. But it wasn’t just blue states experiencing massive changes. In this clip, Glenn unveils the SHOCKING statistics that prove Americans are sick & tired of far-left states, and they’re looking for other places to live that are much more favorable to freedom…

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: All right. Let me talk to you a little bit about what's happening. Stu, you have an analytical mind. I don't. I don't think like you.

You think numbers. See if you can figure this out. The IRS migration data, released last week, shows that California lost more residents than any other state.

Net loss of nearly 332,000 people, and more than 29 billion dollars, in income.

STU: Okay.

GLENN: Okay? The state with the second largest population loss, is New York, which saw a loss of 262,000 residents and $24.5 billion in income.

STU: Uh-huh.

GLENN: What time will the train pull into the station?

Gee, I can't figure this out.

Illinois is the other, with the loss of 105,000 people and 10.8 billion.

STU: Weird.

GLENN: Okay?

STU: Hmm. And what's the time period? Does it give you the time period on this? 2019 for COVID type of number?

GLENN: No. I think it's -- no. It -- 2021.

STU: Okay.

GLENN: Yeah. 2021.

STU: Okay. That sounds like a -- certainly, people reacting to the restrictions is a good -- I would guess a good chunk of that.

GLENN: Yeah. Sure. Sure.

STU: Massachusetts, for example, had a net loss of 44,000 people. $4.3 billion in income. Louisiana lost 28,500. And $861 million in income.

STU: Uh-huh.

GLENN: New Jersey, which lost fewer people. 26,000, lost a total of $4.87.

No. $3.8 billion less in income.

So it seems as though, the high tax in your face states.

STU: Uh-huh.

GLENN: Are not appealing to those people who have the ability to get away from them.

STU: Yeah. And I would add on to that, the states that decided to control every aspect of your life, during the pandemic as well.

Right? So if you, let's say, for example, try to shut down businesses. Control people's movement.

Force them to wear masks, and take medication. They may or may not want to have taken.

And also, try to make them pay exorbitant prices for that privilege. Maybe those people aren't going to stay anymore. It's a crazy idea.

GLENN: Now, here's another crazy idea.

In California, I mean, they're mixing up some powerful medicine. You know, to help their state.

Californians, the state democratic law makers have introduced a bill, that would impose a wealth tax. Okay?

Now, listen to this. A wealth tax on the wealthiest residents. Including for several years after you move from the state.

STU: I'm sorry. Now. You're getting a wealth tax, they pay to California. Even though, you don't live in California.

GLENN: Even though, you don't live in California. If you lived in California, moved away, it doesn't matter. It doesn't matter.

They will still tax you for several years. I don't know legally, how could they can do that.

STU: I don't think they could. And also, wealth tax is completely unconstitutional federally. Whether they could get away with it at a state level, I'm not sure.

But you're not allowed to do that federally. Which is, of course, something that Elizabeth Warren, still, you know, over and over and over again, props up there, as some possibility to solve all of our problems.

GLENN: Yeah. Now, here is the big winner. The big winner, of course, say it with me. North Dakota.

Florida, 255,834 residents. 39.19 billion dollars coming into the state.

Texas, number two, 174,866 with 10.9 billion dollars. North Carolina, 76,000, and almost 5 billion dollars. South Carolina, just over 4 billion.

The same with Tennessee, 4.5 billion.

STU: It's legitimately incredible. It was all blue states except one. That people are moving out of. And all red states, that they were moving into.

But what could be the pattern here?

I don't know. What could it be? And, by the way, I think Louisiana was the one state that people were moving out of. It was also one of the hardest hit states, because of COVID.

I mean, that was really did have a rough.

GLENN: Louisiana always has a rough go of it.

STU: Especially places like New Orleans. Which you wouldn't necessarily associate with red state policies.

You know, that's really where they get hammered by that.

GLENN: Any place where you have to say. And this goes for parts of Florida. Any place that you have to say, kids, don't reach into the bushes. Is a problem.

Okay?

I mean, where is Johnnie. I don't know. I just saw him reaching into the bush.

STU: Okay.

GLENN: Giant mouth opened up and ate him. Yeah, I think that's a problem.

STU: It could happen at any time.

GLENN: Yeah, I associate that more with Louisiana. Maybe unfairly.

STU: Well, it's on the Louisiana state flag. There's a child being eaten by something in the bush. They don't realize that. It's not necessarily the best commercial for the --

GLENN: Right. I don't know if I would have that on my state flag.

STU: This happens all the time. Let's show people what's going on.

GLENN: Yeah, so there's something else here. Jeffrey Epstein. His little black book.

Now, may I ask, if this wasn't about the world's most powerful people, it was about you and me.

Going to see, you know, teenage slaves, for sex.

STU: To be frowned upon, I just.

GLENN: It would be frowned upon. And I just we all would be exposed.

Don't you think? And the press would lead the way.

STU: I mean, this they -- they came after the guy who did Subway commercials. Right? You know, they -- if it was a conservative, of any prominence, they would make sure, you knew about it.

GLENN: Yeah. Right.

So Jeffrey Epstein met with the Obama White House council, the Rothschilds.

I do not know of all of them, but probably the spooky.

STU: The Koch Brothers. You can't meet with all of them. There's always both of them.

GLENN: There's only two?

STU: Only one now. The other one died.

GLENN: That's what they want you to believe.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: He died. Uh-huh. Anyway, and then our --

STU: Just like Jeffrey Epstein.

GLENN: And then our CIA director. Now, let me just -- I want to take you down just for a second. Okay. I know you had a restful week. I know you were like, hey, I'm good.

And I didn't even watch Chuck Todd. And I would say to you, no one watches Chuck Todd.

I think we're getting to the place, to where we can just get a transcript from a bot. And even the bot is saying, why do I have to watch Chuck Todd?

I mean, I'm not human, but is this cruel. Anyway, Chuck Todd, he had Vivek Ramaswamy on.

And Chuck was saying. Well, you know, the FBI. You want to abolish the FBI.

And you want to replace it with a new FBI.

Well, I don't know about replacing it with a new FBI. But, yeah, abolishing the FBI.

Who does this not sound good to at this point?

STU: The left used to always love it. Always love it. They were the ones pitching it all the time.

GLENN: Right. So he goes on, and says, the problem is, there's people in there, working there for decades.

So what I say, if the US president and I can't work for the federal government for more than eight years, which I think is a good thing, then none of the bureaucrats reporting to the president should either.

Okay. Well, that was crazy. That went over his head.

All right. Let me talk you back to Epstein for just a second.

Because I think it illustrates his point really well. We'll do that in 60 seconds. Sometimes, the value of a product or service relies heavily on the values of the company, that is producing that product or service.

And your mobile carrier is no exception to this rule. Aren't you tired of having to pay through the nose, for phone service. All the while that your money could be, and in some cases, definitely is, going to leftist causes that you don't support at all?

Every time you support, for instance, Verizon mobile, they're taking some of your money, and it is going to Planned Parenthood.

What are we doing? America's only Christian conservative wireless provider. Offers dependable, nationwide coverage on all three major networks. So you can get the best possible service in your area, but aren't simultaneously helping fund woke propaganda, by spending your money with those big mobile companies. When you switch to Patriot Mobile, you choose to support free speech. And religious freedom and sanctity of life. First responders are veterans. Their 100 percent US-based customer service team will make switching incredibly fast and easy.

Do yourself -- do our country a favor. Make the switch today.

PatriotMobile.com/Beck. Save money and stand with the people who are standing with you.

PatriotMobile.com/Beck.

Or 878PATRIOT. 878PATRIOT. Offer code is Beck. PatriotMobile.com/Beck. Ten-second station ID.
(music)
Okay. So in the calendar. In the little black book of Jeffrey Epstein, it was made available last week. A new player in the saga was revealed. And it was the CIA director William Burns.

Now, Burns, his last job in government, before taking the helm of the CIA was Deputy Secretary of State from 2011, 2014.

He worked for Hillary Clinton. Now, the CIA spokesperson was asked, hey, what's the deal with him and Epstein's little black book?

And this is what the CIA spokesperson said, well, I'll tell you, but I'd have to kill you.

No, they said, Mr. Burns met with Epstein, about a decade ago.

Listen to that. He met with him, but it was a decade ago. Well, if they were talking about young girls and having sex, I don't care how long ago it was.

But he met with him, about a decade ago, as he was preparing to leave government service.

The director did not know anything about him. Other than, that he was introduced as an expert in the financial services secretary, or sector. And offered general advice to the transition, to the private sector.

So apparently, Epstein was a trusted career counselor.

Huh! In reality, Burns met with Epstein, at least once in Washington, DC, shortly before he left the State Department. And then two other times, in New York City, at his penthouse, where Bill Gates would hang out.

All of this reported to the Wall Street Journal.

Now, does anyone have a hard time believing the framing here. That somebody like Burns at his level took a random meeting, and didn't really know anything about him?

And then took two other random meetings with a guy at his house. Really?

Because that doesn't -- hmm.

One random meeting, maybe. But I will tell you, just to get on -- I'm not somebody that was, you know, the secretary of state level.

I'm just an alcoholic DJ, getting somebody on my schedule is really difficult.

Just having some random guy, who I'm going to meet. That doesn't happen very often in my schedule. Going three times? Randomly! To somebody I don't really know much about?

It never happens. It never happens. And I'm thinking, if you're going to be the head of the CIA, if you're doing that and the third time, you still don't know who this guy is, you shouldn't be the head of the CIA.

STU: Did they check backgrounds for these people at all?

GLENN: I know my team does.

STU: But I'm saying, when you're head of the CIA, does that -- does anyone know your background?

GLENN: Right. Right. Right. So now you fast forward. Joe Biden is looking for somebody to head the CIA.

We're about to enter a proxy war with Russia in Ukraine. Bill burns! He's the guy, we'll put him in. You know, the guy who didn't know who Jeffrey Epstein was, for three solid meetings.

Wow. I don't. Hmm.

This is what Vivek is talking about. This is -- these career guys. You have to get out. Get them out of there. It's just a nest of bad things.

STU: And at the point, where you think, there's just too much corruption to try to fix it, because you can have an organization that has corruption in it and fix it and come back around. But like, it just seems like there's too much here.

GLENN: No. It is. It is.

Have you tried unplugging it, and plugging it back in.

That's the only thing we haven't tried. We've tried everything else. Unplug it, and plug it back in.

Everything needs to be shut down and rebooted. Back to original factory settings.

That's the key. We've got all this bad programming, that has been piling up and is making the system run like it was never designed to. And it's all breaking down.

Restore back to original factory settings. But you -- I love the press. They think. Well, you -- you just want to get rid of all the police. And the FBI.

Well, if the entire thing is corrupt, and maybe there's some good guys out there. I think at the local level, there probably are good guys.

I think it's mainly in Washington. But, yeah. I think we'll start the hiring process all over again.

Because we have to. Why is that so insane?

STU: I don't think it is. I think some people get rid of the FBI or the CIA, and think, well, wait a minute.

They do a lot of work that is important. And while, yes. I know they're corrupt.

Going after, you know, high level criminals. Violent gangs. Terrorists. All these things.

Still need to be done. They just don't need to be done, with the exact organization, the exact same way.

GLENN: So the FBI used to be the aid for the state. But now they're not.

They used to be. The FBI would say, you know, there's interstate crime going on. And the states will be like, you can nail these guys please? Because it's out of my state, in another state. So the FBI would do that. But they would assist, the local -- the states. And when they would arrest somebody, it wasn't the FBI, that got Bonnie and Clyde in Texas. It was the Rangers. Okay. It was the Texas Rangers. If they were going to get somebody, they would advise. They might even be there. But it was the state that did that. Now, they can roll in any way they want.

They don't have to call the state. They don't have to -- no. We never had a national police force.

And that's how they're being used now. It can't happen. It can't happen.

And if it means, we have to be without, the FBI, for I don't know. How long does it take to reboot?

It's a scary couple of minutes, I guess. When it's rebooting. You're like, okay. Okay. Hurry up. Hurry up.

You know, but is it any different what Windows does to you probably once a month?

No. No. No. Now it probably has to reset.

STU: Yeah. I think like you have to have a plan, to make sure the operations of the country that are important, not investigating the president over -- like, not the stuff that they've been doing lately.

But, I mean, the things that are actually important. Need to be potentially used for other areas.

And people resigned. But it needs -- a whole reimagining of this needs to occur.

GLENN: I don't think a reimagining.

STU: You don't think that there's any valid work done by the CIA and the FBI.

Like that's crucial to the country's security.

GLENN: Oh, no. I do. I do.

I mean, I don't need to reimagine it. I need to clean the corruption out.

STU: Yeah. I just that -- I think the structure needs to be reimagined completely. I don't think the way it's structured now. You will get this problem again.

GLENN: It is. Because it has way too much power. It has way too much power, and no real oversight. That's the problem.

So it's not really, in my view, it wasn't a reimagining. It's more of, how does the Constitution say these things work?

STU: Right. Okay. That's a reimagining for right now.

GLENN: Okay. You're right. You're right.

EXPOSED: Tim Walz's shocking ties to radical Muslim cleric

Minnesota Governor Tim Walz is directly connected in more ways than one to a radical Muslim cleric named Asad Zaman. Zaman's history and ties are despicable, and despite Walz's efforts to dismiss his connection to Zaman, the proof is undeniable. Glenn Beck heads to the chalkboard to connect the dots on this relationship.

Watch the FULL Episode HERE: Glenn Beck Exposes TERRORIST SYMPATHIZERS Infiltrating the Democrat Party

Is there a sinister GOP plan to SELL national parks?

Is Sen. Mike Lee pushing a sinister plan to sell our national parks and build “affordable housing” on them? Glenn Beck fact checks this claim and explains why Sen. Lee’s plan to sell 3 million acres of federal land is actually pro-freedom.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Now, let me give you a couple of things, from people I generally respect.

Chris Rufo, I really respect.

I'm totally against selling this land.

Nobody is going to build affordable housing deep in the Olympic Peninsula, which is one of the most beautiful places in the country.

I agree, it's in Washington State. It's on the coast. And it's a rain forest.

I want my kids hiking, fishing, and camping on those lands, not selling them off for some tax credit scam. This is a question I want to ask Mike Lee about.

That's really good. Matt Walsh chimes in, I'm very opposed to the plan. The biggest environmentalist in the country are and always have been, conservatives who like to hunt and fish.

We don't just call ourselves environmentalists, because the label has too much baggage.

And the practice always just means communist. Really, we are naturalists in the tradition of Teddy Roosevelt, and that's why most of us hate the idea of selling off federal lands to build affordable housing or whatever. I want to get to affordable housing here in a second.

Preserving nature is important. It's a shame we haven't -- that we've allowed conservation to become so left-wing coated. It never was historically.

No, and it still isn't.

You're right about one thing, Matt. We are the best conservatives. We actually live in these places. We use these places. We respect the animals. We respect the land. We know how the circle of life works. So I agree with you on that.

But affordable housing. Why do you say affordable housing or whatever?

Are you afraid those will be black people? I'm just playing devil's advocate? Are you just afraid of black people? You don't want any poor people in your neighborhood or your forest?

That's not what they mean by affordable housing.

And I know that's not what you mean either.

But what -- what we mean by affordable housing is, if you take a look at the percentage of land that is owned in some of these states. You can't live in a house, in some of these states, you know. Close to anything, for, you know, less than a million dollars. Because there's no land!

There's plenty of land all around.

Some of it. Let's just talk about Utah.

Some of it is like the surface of the moon!

But no. No. No.

Not going to hunt and fish on the surface of the moon. But we can't have you live anywhere.

I mean, you have to open up -- there is a balance between people and the planet. And I'm sorry. But when you're talked about one half of 1 percent, and we're not talking about Yellowstone.

You know, we're not. Benji Backer, the Daily Caller, he says, the United States is attempting to sell off three million acres of public land, that will be used for housing development through the addition of the spending bill.

This is a small provision to the big, beautiful bill that would put land in Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado. Idaho. New Mexico. Oregon. Utah. Washington, and Wyoming at risk.

Without so much as a full and fair debate by members of both sides of the political aisle.

You know, I talked -- I'll talk to him about this.

The irony is, the edition of this provision by Republican-led Senate goes entirely against conservation legacy of a conservation. President Trump made a promise to revive this legacy.

Yada. Yada. Yada.

More about Teddy Roosevelt.

Then let me give you this one from Lomez. Is Mike Lee part of a sinister plan to sell off federal land?

This plan to sell off public lands is a terrible proposal that doesn't make any sense under our present circumstances and would be a colossal political blunder. But I'll try to be fair to base Mike Lee.

And at least have him explain where this is all coming from.

Okay. I will have him do that in about 30 minutes.

Let me give you just my perspective on this.

I'm from the West. I love the west.

I don't hike myself.

I think there's about 80 percent of the people who say, I just love to hike. And they don't love to hike. They never go outside.

I'm at least willing to admit. I don't like to hike. But I love the land. I live in a canyon now. That I would love to just preserve this whole canyon in my lifetime. I'm not going to rule from the grave. But in my lifetime, to protect this, so it remains unspoiled. Because it is beautiful!

But we're talking about selling 3 million acres of federal land. And it's becoming dangerous.

And it's a giveaway. Or a threat to nature.

But can we just look at the perspective here?

The federal government owned 640 million acres. That is nearly 28 percent of all land in America!

How much land do we have?

Well, that's about the size of France.

And Germany. Poland.

And the United Kingdom, combined!

They own and hold pristine land, that is more than the size of those countries combined!

And most of that is west of the Mississippi. Where the federal control smothers the states.

Okay?

Shuts down opportunity. Turns local citizens into tenets of the federal estate.

You can't afford any house because you don't have any land!

And, you know, the states can't afford to take care of this land. You know why the states can't afford it?

Because you can't charge taxes on 70 percent of your land!

Anyway, on, meanwhile, the folks east of the Mississippi, like Kentucky, Georgia. Pennsylvania.

You don't even realize, you know, how little of the land, you actually control.

Or how easy it is for the same policies, to come for you.

And those policies are real.

Look, I'm not talking about -- I'm disturbed by Chris Rufo saying, that it is the Olympic forest.

I mean, you're not going to live in the rain forest. I would like to hear the case on that.

But we're not talking about selling Yellowstone or paving over Yosemite or anything like that.

We're talking about less than one half of one percent of federal land. Land that is remote.
Hard to access. Or mismanaged. I live in the middle of a national forest.

So I'm surrounded on all sides by a national forest, and then BLM land around that. And then me. You know who the worst neighbor I have is?

The federal government.

The BLM land is so badly mismanaged. They don't care what's happening.

Yeah. I'm going to call my neighbor, in Washington, DC, to have them fix something.

It's not going to happen.

If something is wrong with that land, me and my neighbors, we end up, you know, fixing the land.

We end up doing it. Because the federal government sucks at it.

Okay.

So here's one -- less than one half of 1 percent.

Why is it hard to access that land?

Well, let me give you a story. Yellowstone.

Do you know that the American bison, we call it the buffalo.

But it's the American bison.

There are no true American bison, in any place, other than Yellowstone.

Did you know that?

Here's almost an endangered species.

It's the only true American bison, is in Yellowstone.

Ranchers, I would love to raise real American bison.

And I would protect them.

I would love to have them roaming on my land.

But you can't!

You can't.

Real bison, you can't.

Why? Because the federal government won't allow any of them to be bred.

In fact, when Yellowstone has too many bison on their land, you know what the federal government does?

Kills them. And buries them with a bulldozer. Instead of saying, hey. We have too many.

We will thin the herd.

We will put them on a truck. Here's some ranchers that will help repopulate the United States with bison. No, no, no. You can't do that.

Why? It's the federal government. Stop asking questions. Do you know what they've done to our bald eagles.

I have pictures of piles of bald eagles.

That they'll never show you.

They'll never show you.

You can't have a bald eagle feather!

It's against the law, to have a feather, from a bald eagle!

If it's flying, and a feather falls off, you can't pick it up. Because they're that sacred.

But I have pictures of piles of bald eagles, dead, from the windmills.

And nobody says a thing.

Okay.

But we're talking about lands.

States can't afford to manage it.

Okay. But how can the federal government?

Now, this is really important.

The federal government is, what? $30 trillion in debt or are we 45 trillion now, I'm not sure?

Our entitlement programs, all straight infrastructure, crumbling.

And yet, we're still clinging to millions of acres of land, that the federal government can't maintain. Yeah, they can.

Because they can always print money.

We can't print money in the state, so we can't afford it.

Hear me out. The BLM Forest Service, Park Service, billions of dollars behind in maintenance, roads, trails, fire brakes.

Everything is falling apart..

So what's the real plan here?

Well, the Biden administration was the first one that was really open about it, pushing for what was called 30 by 30.

They want 30 percent of all US land and water, under conservation by 2030.

But the real goal is 5050.

50 percent of the land, and the water, in the government's control by 2050.

Half of the country locked up under federal or elite approved protection.

Now, you think that's not going to affect your ability to hunt, fish, graze, cattle. Harvest, timber, just live free. You won't be able to go on those. It won't be conservatives, who stop you from hunting and fishing.

It will be the same radical environmental ideologues, who see the land, as sacred, over people!

I mean, unless it's in your backyard. Your truck. Or your dear stand, you know, then I guess you can't touch that land.

Here's something that no one is talking about, and it goes to the 2030.

The Treasury right now, and they started under Obama, and they're still doing it now.

Sorry, under Biden.

And they're doing it now. The Treasury is talking about putting federal land on the national ballot sheet. What does that mean?

Well, it will make our balance sheet so much better.

Because it looks like we have so much more wealth, and we will be able to print more money.

Uh-huh. What happens, you know. You put something sacred like that, on your balance sheet, and the piggy bank runs dry.

And all of the banks are like, okay.

Well, you can't pay anymore.

What happens in a default?

What happens, if there's catastrophic failure. You don't get to go fish on that land. Because that land becomes Chinese.

You think our creditors, foreign and domestic, won't come knocking?

What happens when federal land is no longer a national treasure, but a financial asset, that can be seized or sold or controlled by giant banks or foreign countries.

That land that you thought, you would always have access to, for your kids, for your hunting lodge, for your way of life.

That is really important!

But it might not be yours at all. Because you had full faith in the credit of the United States of America.

So what is the alternative?

Dershowitz SLAMS ‘expert’ lies in explosive trans surgery debate

The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in favor a Tennessee law that bans transgender surgeries for minors. But famed attorney Alan Dershowitz explains to Glenn why “it should have been unanimous.”

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Alan Dershowitz, how are you?

ALAN: I'm doing great, how about you?

GLENN: It has been a really confusing week. I'm losing friends, I think, because I stand with Israel's right to defend themselves. And I'm pointing out, that while I don't want a war, Iran is a really bad place.

And then I see, the Supreme Court comes out best interest there are three justices are like, I don't know. I think children, you know, can change their identity before we even let them drive or carry a gun. Or enlist in the military.

It's insane!

ALAN: It is insane. Especially since the radical left said that -- 17 and a half-year-old -- voluntary sex with their boyfriend. That would be sexist, that would be horrible.

But they can consent to have an abortion. They can consent to have radical surgery, that can't be reversed.

By the way, the decision is like six to two and a half. Elena Kagan, my former colleague at Harvard, didn't reach the merits of whether or not a state could actually ban these operations on a minor. She got involved in whether or not you need super, duper scrutiny, or just super scrutiny, a kind of, you know, a very technical thing.

But she didn't rule on whether under any kind of scrutiny, the state could do that. So definitely, two of them said that the state could do it, but not necessarily a third one.

GLENN: Okay.

Can you break this argument down? And why it should have been unanimous?

ALAN: Oh, it should be unanimous. There's no question.

States under the Constitution, have the authority to decide medical issues. States decide a whole range of medical issues. I remember when I was a young professor, there was an issue of whether or not one twin could be operated on to remove a kidney, to be given to another twin.

And, you know, that case went all the way through -- the federal government never got involved in that. That was up to the state of Massachusetts. They made interesting decisions.

Some states go the other way.

Half the countries of Europe go one way. The other half go the other way. And just as Justice Brandeis once said that things are the laboratories of Constitutional experimentation.

They have the right to do things their own way. And then we'll see over time. Over time, I predict that we will find that this kind of surgery, is not acceptable scientifically for young people.

And the New York Times had an absurd op-ed yesterday. By the mother of a transgender person.

And it never mentioned. It originally said that the person was now 18 years old.

And the decision does not apply to anyone who is 18.

You know, just wait. Don't make irreversible decisions while you're 12 years old. Or 13 years old.

Because we know the statistics show, that some people, at least, regret having made these irreversible decisions, particularly. Yeah.

GLENN: So why is it -- why is it that the state. Why wasn't the argument, you can't do this to children?

ALAN: Well, you know, that's the question.

Whether or not if the state says, you can do it to children, that violates the Constitution. I think states are given an enormous amount of leeway, this. Deciding what's best for people.

You leave it to the public.

And, you know, for me, if I were, you know, voting. I would not vote to allow a 17-year-old to make that irreversible decision. But if the state wants to do it. If a country in Europe wants to do it. All right!

But the idea that there's a constitutional right for a minor, who can't -- isn't old enough to consent to a contract, to have sex, is old enough to consent to do something that will change their life forever, and they will come to regret, is -- is absurd.

GLENN: So I don't know how you feel about Justice Thomas. But he -- he took on the so-called experts.

And -- and really kind of took him to the woodshed. What were your thoughts on that?

ALAN: Well, I agree with that. I devoted my whole life to challenging experts. That's what I do in court.

I challenge experts all the time. But most of the major cases that I've won, have been cases where experts went one way, and we were -- persuaded a jury or judge. That the expert is not really an expert.

Experts have become partisans, just like everybody else.

And so I'm glad that expert piece is being challenged by judges.

And, you know, experts ought to challenge judges, judges challenge experts. That's the world we live in. Everybody challenges everybody else. As long as all of us are allowed to speak, allowed to have our point of view expressed, allowed to vote, that's democracy.

Democracy does not require a singular answer to complex medical, psychological, moral problems. We can have multiple answers.

We're not a dictatorship. We're not in North Korea or Iran, where the ayatollah or the leader tells us what to think. We can think for ourselves, and we can act for ourselves.

GLENN: Yeah. It's really interesting because this is my argument with Obamacare.

I was dead set against Obamacare. But I wasn't against Romneycare when it was in Massachusetts. If that's what Massachusetts wants to do, Massachusetts can do it. Try it.

And honestly, if it would work in a state, we would all adopt it.

But the problem is, that some of these things, like Romneycare, doesn't work. And so they want to -- they want to rope the federal government into it. Because the federal government can just print money. You know, any state wants to do anything.

For instance, I have a real hard time with California right now.

Because I have a feeling, when they fail, we will be roped into paying for the things that we all knew were bad ideas.

Why? Why should I pay for it in Texas, when I know it wouldn't work?

And I've always wanted to live in California, but I don't, because I know that's not going to work.

ALAN: Yeah. But conservatives sometimes take the opposite point of view.

Take guns, for example.

The same Justice Thomas says that I state cannot have the authority to decide that guns should not be available in time square.

Or in schools. There has to be a national openness to guns. Because of the second apple.

And -- you can argue reasonably, what the Second Amendment means.

But, you know, conservatives -- many conservatives take the view that it has to be a single standard for the United States.

It can't vary in their decision how to control -- I'm your favorite --

GLENN: Isn't that -- doesn't that -- doesn't that just take what the -- what the Bill of Rights is about, and turns it upside the head?

I mean, it says, anything not mentioned here, the states have the rights.

But they -- they cannot. The federal government cannot get involved in any of these things.

And these are rights that are enshrined.

So, I mean, because you could say that, but, I mean, when it comes to health care, that's not in the Constitution. Not in the Bill of Rights.

ALAN: Oh, no.

There's a big difference, of course.

The Second Amendment does provide for the right to bear arms.

The question is whether it's interpreted in light of the beginning of the Second Amendment. Which says, essentially, a well-regulated, well-regulated militia. Whether that applies to private ownership as well.

Whether it could be well-regulated by states.

Look, these are interesting debates.

And the Supreme Court, you know, decides these.

But all I'm saying is that many of these decisions are in some way, influenced by ideology.

The words of the Constitution, don't speak like, you know, the Ten Commandments and God, giving orders from on high.

They're often written in ambiguous terms. Even the Ten Commandments. You know, it says, thou shall not murder. And it's been interpreted by some to say, thou shall not still, the Hebrew word is (foreign language), for murder, not kill. And, of course, we know that in parts of the Bible, you are allowed to kill your enemies, if they come after you to kill you, rise up and kill them first.

So, you know, everything -- human beings are incapable of writing with absolute clarity, about complex issues.

That's why we need institutions to interpret them. The institutions should be fair.

And the Supreme Court is sometimes taking over too much authority, too much power.

I have an article today, with gay stone.

Can had starts with a quote from the book of Ruth.

And it says, when judges rule the land, there was famine.

And I say, judges were not supposed to ever rule, going back to Biblical times.

Judges are supposed to judge.

People who are elected or pointed appropriately. Are the ones supposed to rule.

GLENN: Quickly. Two other topics. And I know you have to go.

If I can get a couple of quick takes on you.

The Democrats that are being handcuffed, and throwing themselves into situations.

Do you find that to be a sign of a fascistic state or a publicity stunt?

ALAN: A publicity stunt. And they would knit it. You know, give them a drink at 11 o'clock in the bar. They will tell you, they are doing this deliberately to get attention.

Of course, a guy who is running behind in the mayor race in New York, goes and gets himself arrested. And now he's on every New York television station. And probably will move himself up in the polls.

So no.

Insular -- I don't believe in that. And I don't believe we should take it -- take it seriously.

GLENN: Last question.

I am proudly for Israel.

But I'm also for America. And I'm really tired of foreign wars.

And I think you can be pro-Israel and pro-America at the same time.

I don't think you can -- you don't have to say, I'm for Israel, defending themselves, and then that makes me a warmonger.

I am also very concerned about Iran. And have been for a very long time.

Because they're Twelvers. They're Shia Twelvers. That want to wash the world in blood. To hasten the return of the promised one.

So when they have a nuclear weapon. It's a whole different story.

ALAN: No, I agree with you, Tucker Carlson, is absolutely wrong, when he say he has to choose between America first or supporting Israel. Supporting Israel in this fight against Iran, is being America first.

It's supporting America. Israel has been doing all the hard work. It's been the one who lost its civilians and fortunately, none of its pilots yet.

But America and Israel work together in the interest of both countries.

So I'm -- I'm a big supporter of the United States, the patriarch. And I'm a big supporter of Israel at the same time.

Because they work together in tandem, to bring about Western -- Western values.

GLENN: Should we drop a bomb?

ALAN: Yes, we should.

GLENN: Our plane drop the bomb?

ALAN: Yes, we should. And without killing civilians. It can be done. Probably needs four bombs, not one bomb. First, one bomb to open up the mountain. Then another bomb to destroy what's going on inside.

And in my book The Preventive State, I make the case for when preventive war is acceptable. And the war against Iran is as acceptable as it would have been to attack Nazi Germany in the 1930s. If we had done that, if Britain and France had attacked Nazi Germany in the 1930s, instead of allowing it to be built up, it could have saved 60 million lives. And so sometimes, you have to take preventive actions to save lives.

GLENN: What is the preventive state out, Alan?

ALAN: Just now. Just now.

Very well on Amazon.

New York Times refuses to review it. Because I defended Donald Trump.

And Harvard club cancelled my appearance talked about the book. Because I haven't been defending Harvard. I've been defending President Trump's attack. By the way, they called Trump to Harvard: Go fund yourself.
(laughter)

GLENN: Okay.

Let's -- I would love to have you back on next week. To talk about the preventive state. If you will. Thank you, Alan. I appreciate it. Alan Dershowitz. Harvard Law school, professor emeritus, host of the Dershow. And the author of the new book that's out now, The Preventive State.

I think that's a really important topic. Because we are -- we are traveling down the roads, where fascism, on both sides, where fascism can start to creep in. And it's all for your own good.

It's all for your own protection. Be aware. Be aware.

THE GLENN BECK PODCAST

They want to control what you eat! — Cattle rancher's stark warning

American cattle rancher Shad Sullivan tells Glenn Beck that there is a "War on Beef" being waged by the globalist elites and that Americans need to be prepared for this to be an ongoing battle. How secure is America's food supply chain, and what does the country need to do to ensure food shortages never occur in the future?

Watch Glenn's FULL Interview with Shad Sullivan HERE