RADIOMay 03, 2022

THIS is when our free press stopped working for the PEOPLE

The Department of Homeland Security’s new ‘Disinformation Governance Board’ — which seems eerily similar to 1984’s ‘Ministry of Truth' — proves that Americans’ First Amendment rights are in great danger. But when did one of those rights — our freedom of the press — become so unimportant to actual members of the press? When did journalists and media corporations stop working for the PEOPLE and start working for POLITICIANS instead? Glenn explains how Woodrow Wilson, the White House Correspondent’s Dinner, and a desire for power created a dark path AWAY from truth for members of the mainstream media…

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Okay. So what happens when you can't say Rachel Lavigne is a dude, man. It's a dude. It's a dude.

What happens when you say, Rachel Lavigne probably shouldn't be the one we're listening to, when she comes out and says, pediatricians all agree on the importance of gender-affirming care for children. What happens when you can't question things? What happens when you can't have an opinion?

See, this is what the First Amendment is all about. The freedom of speech. The freedom to petition your government.

The freedom of press.

There is a really great book out, the know your rights -- know your Bill of Rights book.

And I talk about it in my book, addicted to you're welcome. And I talked about freedom of the press. And how important it is.

It's essential. If we are going to be free. You must be able to tolerate people saying crazy stuff. And when I say you, I especially mean the government. When the freedom of the press was first. And freedom of the speech was first put into the Bill of Rights. It was challenged. How far does that -- how far does that mean?

How far can you go?

Remember Edison, it was about 100 years later. He was like, I have a crowded movie theater. Because we're watching a movie. Don't cry fire.

So it took about 100 years before we got to that. But you can say fire, in a crowded movie house. You can't incite a riot. You can't incite panic. But I've been on stage, in several crowded theaters, all across the country. And I have said from the stage, fire!

There are certain things, like the press now is saying, Elon Musk, he's going to let people just say they're going to rape me, and give me threats of death, on Twitter.

No. No. That's against the law. That's against the law.

So if you break the law, by inciting violence, inciting a riot, well, then that's not freedom of speech.

That's breaking the law. Well, what's protected? Your opinion. Even believe it or not, lies or things you can't prove about the government. This is -- this was really well-thought out. About freedom of the press. Around the turn of the century in the 1800s.

They had the sedition act, and that's where the guys who just wrote the Bill of Rights were like, you know what, they're saying bad things about me, in the government. I don't like it.

And so we went back and forth, and they passed the sedition act.

Now, Woodrow Wilson did the same thing. He tried to do exactly the same thing, and stifle people. And now we're doing it again.

It rears its head, about every 100 years. And that should tell you something. Politicians and people never change.

We're having the same argument. So how do you -- how do you punish people?

When an author, an opinion guy, like I am. When a newspaper prints something, and the government says that's false, and the government has all of the tools at its disposal, it can hide documents. It doesn't have to for national security purposes, release certain information.

When they are the highest authority in the land, and you're like, no. I'm telling you, they're doing this.

How do you prove that?

And do you want the federal government, to be able to say, no. You can't say that!

Would you want Nixon to be able to say, to the Washington Post, you can't publish that!

Would you want the Pentagon to say to the New York Times, you can't publish those papers!

That stuff never happened. Imagine -- imagine how different it would be. How does a government ensure the freedom of the individual and the press, if they're the arbiter of truth?

How do you do that?

Our Founders actually came up with a couple of really good statements. Truth of opinions can't be proved. Allowing truth as a defense of freedom, is like asking a jury to say, what's the best food or drink?

It's an opinion. So you can't prove the truth, of opinions. So opinion is covered.

A citizen should have, and I'm quoting. Should have the right to say everything which is passion suggests. He may employ all of his time. All of his talents. And if he's wicked enough to do so, in speaking against the government matters. And using things, that are false, scandalous, or malicious.

Despite this, even if he condemns the principle of Republican institutions, centers the measures of our government, and every department and officer thereof. And ascribes the measures of the former, and conduct of the latter however upright to the basis motive, even if he ascribes to the measure and acts which never had existence. Thus violating at one, every principle of decency and truth.

He needs to be protected in his speech. Holy cow. You want to know how far it goes?

That's it. That's it. This was something incredibly new and novel.

No government had ever done anything like this. It was so radical, we're still debating it.

That's -- that's the key to our Founders. They were radicals. So much so, that we don't think of this, as old, dusty, and irrelevant. That's as irrelevant -- that's as relevant today, as anything else.

John Thompson wrote, the government cannot tell a citizen, you shall not think this. Or that upon certain subjects. Or if you do, it is at your own peril.

This was the first time, the government was the slave.

Not the other way around.

The master was the citizen. We could tell government what they can and cannot do. But we cannot have the government tell us, what we can and can't do.

Now, it took about 100 years, before all of this was dismantled again. Progressives started to dismantle free speech in the way that it would help them, and injure their foes.

But John Stuart Mill, and his book on liberality said, the silencing of opinion is a particular evil.

For if that opinion is correct, then we're robbed of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth.

And if it's wrong, we're deprived of a deeper understandings of the truth. In its collision with error.

Now, I brought up the progressives, because the White House Correspondents' Dinner happened this weekend. And nobody paid attention to it. Nobody paid attention to it.

Because we know who all of these people are. There are 3,000 people that attended this. And they all gave themselves a big round of applause. Because they all showed their vaccination certificates at the door. That's great. But what is this? How did this even begin?

What does to do with the DHS, and the ministry of truth?

I'll tell you, in 60 seconds. These days, kids grow up in a virtual world, they're practically raising each other through YouTube and TikTok, dancing through the shallow world, filled with strange challenges and weird stunts. It's very different growing up today.

With all that noise in their day, they need help. They need help finding purpose so they don't waste their lives. Or worse, lose the drive to understand and maintain the liberty that we all share.

You need to show them examples of what's possible. And connect them with a bigger vision of what other kids have achieved.

The Tuttle times, does just that. Tuttle Twins. They have a magazine. A monthly magazine for kids from the creators of the Tuttle Twins. And every issue has big ideas that promote personal responsibility. And freedom. Like, you know, owning their own health and education. As well as profiles about kids who started their own businesses.

You can now get access to the magazine at a reduced price, for $49 for an entire year. This will inspire your kids, and give them examples of other kids doing great things.

You know, it's basically what the school does. You know, every day, when they get in. When they watch the CNN magazine. You know, right at the beginning of school. That's really -- except, it's not like that. In fact, it's probably 100 percent different that happen that. 180 degrees in the other direction. This is about personal responsibility, and liberty. TuttleTwinsBeck.com.

Get the magazine. It's 49 bucks for 12 months. It's TuttleTwinsBeck.com. Ten-second station ID.

(music)

So the president has always had press conferences. And what changing in the 1900s, is the -- the press used to work for the people. Their idea was, that the people in Washington DC, are the guys who are corrupt. And have power. And are trying to steal money and power, from the people.

Woodrow Wilson and the progressives changed all of that. And they changed it. In 1914, Woodrow Wilson decided, I'm not going to give any more press conferences. And everybody was like, wait. What?

And he's like, no, I don't think so

And all of the reporters went crazy. He's like, okay. I'll have them from time to time. I'll have them. But I'm inviting only the people that I want to invite.

That's where the White House Correspondents' Association started. They started, because they saw the White House as an enemy. And the White House was trying to cut off access. And so the White House correspondents got together and said, hey. We're the ones who will cover. And you don't tell us, who will be in, and who will be out. Okay?

Then Woodrow Wilson had this idea, what if we just get them all together, and we make friends?

We just bring them into our circle?

This happened around the same time, they were starting with Colonel House, the best friend of Woodrow Wilson. When they started the Council of Foreign Relations. And no matter what it is today, what it was started as, was let's get the scholars, the politicians, and the media together to explain to them, so they can understand, and explain it to the people.

Because the people are too stupid. This is where you start getting the press, looking down their nose at the average American. Before that, it wasn't happening.

After the Wilson administration, they start thinking, that they are better. Because they know. Because they're informed. They talk to all the experts. They talk to the politicians. They know who they are. We just had dinner the other night. And we made mad passion and love after that.

And so that's -- they start gathering as a group of intellectuals, politicians, and media.

In 1920, I think, the first White House correspondents -- there's like 50 people there, in '24, Silent Cow goes. And Charlie Chaplin makes fun of him. But it was a very small group of just the correspondents.

It was a small group. They would put -- back in the '50s and '60s, Frank Sinatra would show up and sing. But there was no comedy until the '80s. That's when they started bringing the comedians on.

And the comedians used to be neutral. And kind of, you know, Jay Lenoish. So it wasn't -- you know, nobody's hair was on fire. And then in '94, Don Imus, a good friend of ours, went on -- went on the stage and started making fun of Bill Clinton.

And, you know, cigars. And everything else. Ninety-four -- it was '96, I think.

That's when -- that's when -- that's when things kind of changed at the White House Correspondents' Dinner.

Thank you, Don Imus. But Don Imus was doing something that none of the rest of the press would. He actually talked about -- he burned everybody to the ground.

That's what should happen, and that is exactly the kind of stuff, this new disinformation governance board, is involved in. In fact, do we happen to have the clip from the weekend?

Here's Mayorkas, cut number seven. Here's -- this is the Secretary of DHS.

GLENN: Will American citizens be monitored?

VOICE: No.

VOICE: Guarantee that?

GLENN: He didn't --

VOICE: What we do -- we in the Department of Homeland Security, don't monitor American citizens.

VOICE: You don't. But will this board change that?

VOICE: No, no, no. The board does not have any operational authority or capability. What it will do, is gather together, best practices in addressing the threat of disinformation.

GLENN: Okay.

VOICE: From foreign state adversaries.

GLENN: Hold on just a second.

Mr. Secretary, follow-up, are you using any other agencies, that do monitor? Are you using agencies, from other countries, that will monitor?

They're not going to give you the truth anyway. But whenever anybody in the government says, oh. We're not going to -- I can guarantee you. They're already doing it.

We're already like, oh, yeah. In fact, I knew that question was coming. Because I've been monitoring between you and your culverts on the questions you're going to ask me today. Of course. Of course, they're monitoring.

STU: I love how they blow it off as like, hey, we're announcing this big initiative. It doesn't do anything though. Whatever you think two may do. It doesn't do those things. It does nothing.

It's a total waste of time. Don't worry about it at all. Because it's only -- it's a positive idea that does not accomplish a thing. That -- wait. What?

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