RADIOJune 09, 2025

Insider scoop: Russ Vought reveals Trump’s plan to CRUSH deficit spending

Amid the heated debate between Donald Trump and Elon Musk over the “Big, Beautiful Bill,” Trump’s Office of Management and Budget director Russ Vought joins Glenn Beck to clear a few things up. Is raising the debt ceiling a terrible move? Where are all the DOGE cuts? What happens to Trump’s agenda if the bill isn’t passed?

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Russ Voit, how are you, sir?

RUSS: I'm doing well, thanks for having me.

GLENN: You bet. It's great to have you on. Yesterday was a tough day. Do you know, has the president has his phone call yet? Are they coming back together?

RUSS: Well, I think the president made some comments to the press this morning, that, you know, he's not looking to have a phone call any time soon. But, you know, I think he's expressed his disappointment yesterday, with regard to some comments made by Elon. Look, Glenn, we're moving forward.

And Elon has been an important ally and patriot throughout all of this. And we've got a job to do. And I think that's what we're most focused on right now, is making sure we can get the word out on this bill, get it across the finished line. Make improvements where we can, but get this thing home to the American people.

GLENN: So I agree with both the president and Elon Musk. I know there are things in this package that are really important. I think the president understands. And Elon doesn't understand, that politics are involved here.

And I don't know Elon was not going after the Democrats and saying, why don't you care some more. Come on. Come on. Help us.

But the president is now putting in a rescission package.

What does that mean? And what is that going to do to this bill?

Well, again, two things I would say. Just going back to your initial comment there.

I think the argument that the fiscal challenges of the country are so bad and we need to do as much as we can. I think there's alignment.

There is total agreement.

I think the issue is how much -- and it's to your second part. How much does this bill. This is not a budget bill.

People get confused because they think if they're using the budget process, it's an agenda bill, that uses a budget process.

It's not a budget resolution. It's not a fiscal picture. It cannot by law, include cuts to discretionary spending, which are all the DOGE permanent cuts. Right?

So that is something that has to be considered elsewhere.

And we're in the process of doing that.

So we just sent up our first recisions bill.

We will send up more.

This one is 9.4 billion.

Why is it so small?

It's small specifically because of the politics you mentioned. Which is that Congress hasn't passed these bills.

And we can do a lot of things ourselves, that we can do in Congress.

Procedurally, this is where you have people come into the party and the coalition.

They don't know the procedures of government.

If Congress does not pass a recisions bill, we lose the ability to just not spend the money. And use some of our tools, that this president is now talking about.

That we are polishing off, that we have not used since the 1970s, to just not use the money.

And so we had this whole side of effort on discretionary spending, making the DOGE cuts permanent. A lot of different ways you can do that. We're in the process of doing that.

That is another piece of the puzzle, fiscally. That you will not get from this reconciliation bill.

GLENN: So why are -- is -- Russ, I know you know this.

And I'm an infant compared to the way your understanding is. So please help me understand.

But we are -- we are up against the wall, with a gun to our head, when it comes to printing more money. Or borrowing more money.

And we've got to cut this budget. Can you explain to the audience why -- why we have to be careful on this.

We can't just go in. And maybe I've seen this wrong. But I don't think we can just go in and just take an axe to everything, until we get the economy to light the match in the economy.

Am I wrong on this?

RUSS: I don't think you're wrong. I think we can do both. But for people, why the bill is so important. So you cannot have a conversation of reducing debt and deficits when the economy is not going, period, end of story. It is a vital foundation. The economic growth gets you all of the way to where we need to go? No, it does not. But the notion that you're ever going to reform these big programs like -- that are welfare and social safety net without a growing economy. You can't impose a work requirement, when there are no jobs.

So this bill, and this is where our main thing that we're trying to correct factually. If you correct for CBO's artificial baseline. That assuming tax relief will expire.

They don't assume that. They assume spending is eternal.

Green new deal, spending through that, is assumed to continue.

Or the preparations. All the woke bureaucracy. All of that. But if you have tax components. All of those are presumed to sunset. Right?

So that is a fundamental. We've known this for decades.

The way that DC screws.

And misassess as our bills.

So you've got to pass this, otherwise we will have a recession. That said, this bill actually cuts spending. It has $1.7 trillion in savings.

Reduces the deficit by $1.4 trillion.

It is the biggest mandatory savings proposal in history in the 1997s.

We were only talking with the work requirements and Bill Clinton and the Republican Newt Gingrich House when we're talking about $800 billion in savings. Has the problem gotten worse? Yes, it has. But this is historic levels. And that's not even talking about the DOGE cuts.

So I think we can do all of them. But we've got to figure, oh, what's the bill doing? What's the maximum that we can do with it? The art of the possible is the three-seat majority in the House and the Senate. We are willing to go further, but we also know the bill has to pass.

And we -- the -- those are small majority. This is not 20-seat majorities. That's a real political constraint that you reflected earlier.

I'm very bullish. Glenn, I think at the end of this year, if this bill passes, and the cuts are maintained in it, we can end the year with a pair time shift on the mandatory spending.

And a paradigm shift on discretionary. We might have a first chance to actually cut non-defense spending by serious levels through the ability to just not spend money, or to send up recisions that don't need a congressional or permanent on through your pocket recisions.

That would dramatically change, and here's the thing: It would lead to results. What has caused the problem that we have. Is fiscal utility.

We don't get any wins. Let alone big wins. This is giving us big wins. It's why we will be able to change the trajectory this year.

GLENN: So the argument against that is it's raising the debt ceiling by $4 trillion.

So why do you say we can raise the debt ceiling, add another 4 trillion in debt, and yet, at the end, have a big win by the end of the year?

What is in this bill, that is not connecting here?

RUSS: So any bill that you would have ever had, the Republican's budget, Rand Paul's budget. Whatever -- no matter what bill you cut, TAP and Balance from yesteryear, any of those bills act over a ten-year period.

And so over that ten-year period, you're giving to low balance levels. Right?

In the media, you all of them assume that in the short term, debt limits.

The debt is going up, while you make progress.

The debt limit. The debt ceiling is a warning sign.

It itself does not create debt.

Now, it is something that historically has been used. The president has views. And we agree that, we haven't gotten anything out of the debt limit.

In 20, 30 years. And so the notion that it should be done outside of reconciliation and Republican votes, is a -- is something that we've been challenging as an administration, that this is not serving our interests. This bill extends the debt limit.

But at his include what can historically -- if you ever got anything historically from the debt limit extension. It would be already in this bill.

That's why we're so excited about this bill.

GLENN: You know, I saw something from Goldman Sachs last week. And they said, we are dangerously close to not being able to sell our debt.

And then having to finance ourselves, and raise the -- you know, the -- you know, the interest that we're having to pay.

Do you know -- do you have any idea how close we are to that number, before this thing?

Because I think we're just really on the edge here. Where is that number? How close are we?

RUSS: I don't think anyone knows. And I don't think you can ever know. And I think this has been with us for a long time. And we obviously see the extent -- no one is arguing back against that. And no one is arguing back to the critics of -- of debt and deficit, at all. But I think what I would push back a little bit, you know, on -- I'll add Moody's to the list as well. Is that, the meta point is true. It's also one that you've been making for 20 years. And the conservative movements have been making. This president has been making. The point is true: The timing of these analysis I think are for a purpose.

And so Moody's kind of made that determination 15 years ago, in the Obama administration, they chose not to.

They chose to do it right before House passage on an agenda bill, that has incredible importance to the American people. And I think the president is getting his trust in that vein. And the notion that Goldman Sachs does not have a sense about the way the baselines work, is also not true.

And so I think what you have going on here.

Is the reality of our fiscal situation, and people continuing to rightfully educate on that.

I think, in the financial community, or some of the watchdogs, there is a timing aspect that is specifically designed to use the -- the legitimate concerns, to take down a bill that is otherwise fantastic. On the -- on a dishonest basis.

And that's one of the reasons we're working so hard to get our message out.

GLENN: I know your time is really tight.

Can you just tell me specifically, what are the things in it, specifically that you say are fantastic? That maybe people don't know.

RUSS: I think the biggest thing is the level of welfare reform that's in this bill.

The Medicaid reforms. The work requirement in Medicaid, to get people back into the workforce. The food stamp reforms. Both tightening the work requirement, and giving states a share of the cost of that -- of that program.

$1.7 trillion in mandatory savings. And then the second aspect of it is, you talk about the DOGE decisions.

And the only spending in this bill, is spending that is specifically designed strategically that is conservative. And -- like border security.

If that's an appropriations process, we're headed towards a shutdown. It looks like the first term. We can't actually have a non-defense fighter. We're cutting because we're fighting for the wall.

This bill criticizes that type of spending, so that it clears the field, strategically for us to have a massive fight on non-defense spending in the appropriations process.

We have talked very rarely about that dynamic, but I think it's one that your audience will find very exciting.

GLENN: Russ, I so appreciate the fact that you are there with the president.

I know the president has earned the right to get his -- we're, what? 120 days or something into his first term. I think he's earned his right to get his way.

I am worried about the debt and the deficit. But I do trust you. And I give my support to the president.

And I hope that we can get past yesterday, and move to get things moving in Washington.

Because I think if this doesn't pass. I haven't heard a better idea from anybody.

I've just heard noes. We've got to get moving on this.

Or we're in trouble.

Deeper trouble than we are right now.

RUSS: Well said. Thank you, Glenn. I appreciate you.

GLENN: You bet. Russ Voit, office of budget and management.

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