RADIOJune 03, 2025

30% of Russia’s bombers gone in Ukraine’s ambush

Ukraine just took out a THIRD of Russia’s strategic nuclear-capable bombers in a massive drone strike across the country. This one operation has changed everything about warfare, Glenn Beck’s head researcher and producer Jason Buttrill warns. Jason joins Glenn and Stu to break down just how life-altering this attack was and how Russia may respond.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Jason.

JASON: Yes, sir.

GLENN: What caliber is .68? You heard of that?

JASON: .68. That's a big number.

GLENN: I've never heard of that.

I know. It's big. But I don't know -- what would you say, it's .68?

JASON: Yeah. I guess.

GLENN: Yeah. Right. I never heard of it.

Yeah. Anyway. So how are you?

JASON: Good. Thank you.

GLENN: Thanks for coming in.

I -- I think what happened in Ukraine, this weekend, is kind of significant. On the war front.

JASON: A little bit.

And signals to, I think, basically what I've been saying for, what?

The last couple of years, I think.

That the next war, you know, everything that we're building, stop building them.

Because AI is going to change everything. Drones are going to change everything. Our aircraft carriers are just sitting ducks now.

What we saw happened from Ukraine, thousands of miles into the interior of Russia.

Is striking! Do you want to explain?

JASON: Yeah. I mean, gosh, you have been talking about what's coming for a very long time.

I mean, think about it. You know, wars have always pushed technology, you. Know, things that were coming, but just pushed them out there, faster than they probably would have before.

GLENN: War and pornography.

Those are the drivers. They are the drivers of tech, war, and pornography.

JASON: Yeah. We have satellite technology, because of, you know, the ICBMs and, you know, the need to dominate space.

I mean, all of these things were pushed.

I mean, you look at economic wars. You look at the oil wars. When oil prices were collapsing.

There are few enterprising people in Texas. That could not pay their workers anymore.

So they were like, let's come up with these gigantic automated platforms. So we can frac. And not pay tons and tons of money, you know, and start giving them operating costs.

That came way before.

People think of these things.

And they push it beyond. You look at this -- you talk about aircraft carriers. Ukraine effectively turned a semi-truck into a multi-you know, tens -- how much does it cost to build an aircraft carrier?

I don't know.

GLENN: Billions!

STU: Billions. Tons of money. They turned in a -- you know, a 20,000-dollar semi-truck into an aircraft carrier. That's what we're looking at right now.

Have you seen these videos of this attack?

STU: Yeah. Let's play them.

Let's do drone exits container first.

Can we do that one, please?

What you're seeing is -- oh, my gosh. Look at the guy coming out of these containers. Just full of drones.

It's like a -- I mean, it's just -- it's like a swarm of these. Okay. Drone flies over Russian bombers as they explode. That's one of them.

This is showing that these are their strategic bombers. This is, you know, like our strategic air command. We have to load with nuclear missiles. If there's a war.

They took out 30 percent of them.

30 percent of the strategic -- we have never been able to do anything like that.

JASON: Do you see the tires on those wings, Glenn?

GLENN: Oh, that's how big they are.

JASON: So they have these tires, right there. Right there. That video right there, you see there's all these tires lined up on the wings. The reason why they did that is because they're trying to stop the targeting systems of these first person drones that Ukraine is employing en masse. So they put the tires on wings, so it attempts to mask or confuse the AI in these -- in the targeting of these drones. They're trying everything they can think of, to slow down this drone warfare.

STU: Is it true, though.

GLENN: Oh, my gosh.

Wait. Wait. So those little spots on the wing. That's how big that plane is. I know that's a big plane.

Awes say that. I'm looking. I see the spots on the top of the wings. I'm like, are those tires?

JASON: Are those tires.

STU: Is it true that they had to control these from inside Russia? Nearby the sites though?

That's the reporting that I heard was. Which is they had all these pilots, apparently. Drone pilots inside the country. Is that accurate?

JASON: I guess that's possible.

And that's an interesting point. Because Ukraine immediately. You know what, I'll stay away from -- I will start with this. I will stay away from any of the BDA, the Battle Damage Assessment on this. Because I know the propaganda machine are going to be insane on both sides.

I don't want to get into another ghost of Kyiv situation here. So it could be as high as 40 bombers. It could be as low as ten. Who knows? The point is, that the name of the game changed, this weekend. Completely changed.

And the reason I think Zelinsky is pushing this out and saying, yeah. We did it.

I mean, Israel didn't even do that, with the Hezbollah beeper thing. They kept it close to the chest for a while, even though we all knew it was them.

But they didn't give away anything in the beginning. Ukraine is saying, this is how we did it.

You know, we loaded up these drones. We saw those tractor trailers on the back of the semi-trucks. It was remotely opened.

And then if they were in Russia or back in Ukraine, who knows where, and then they completely took the drones up and sent them out in swarms.

Like an aircraft carrier. This happened. Everything changed. But the reason they put this out there.

Is because this is also now a big psychological favor with Russia.

Now, they don't know if they can trust any cargo coming into --

GLENN: A shipping container.

STU: They're everywhere, those things.

JASON: Anything! Right. This goes way beyond.

GLENN: Let me just reset this!

Stu, what came to mind, when you said, were they controlling it from inside?

We don't know what's in our country.

We don't who came across our border.

These things could be in our country, today!

I mean, this is -- this is something that -- I mean, the whole world is about to change.

And it just did this weekend.

Let me play one more here.

Drone truck detonates, as man enters.

Let's see this one.

JASON: Yeah.

GLENN: So was that -- what was that?

JASON: Self-destruct.

GLENN: Self-destruct.

JASON: That would self-destruct, so they don't capture the vehicle or examine anything inside. So you had someone remotely opening it. You had remotely piling the swarms out. Then after the job was done, they remotely did a self-destruct and detonated the delivery vehicle. It's amazing. It really is.

GLENN: This is Ukraine.

STU: Right. I mean, Ukraine, in the middle of a war for a long time, obviously.

GLENN: This is Ukraine.

STU: This is not like -- what do we have? What does China have? I would assume it's even more advanced, right?

They're not saying that this is us, that helped them with it, either, right?

JASON: Okay. Yes. We have the capability. I don't know if we've been thinking along these lines.

GLENN: Right. Right. Of course not.

JASON: No. If you go to -- and the word is out there. Interestingly enough, we have been playing a show on this, on TV, to show how things are progressing in Ukraine.

GLENN: It's going to be last week. It was supposed to be last week.

I know.

JASON: Pretty insane.

But I have these videos, like, random lobbers and stuff.

Like, so we're on the front lines of the new drone warfare program. And there are multiple like secret locations in Ukraine, where they have full-on remotely powered vehicles. That are leading the charge. Not, you know, armored mechanized units. That's not happening.

They're sending in these drones, on the ground. Then they send in another wave of drones in the air.

You remember when this war started out, everyone was criticizing the Russians. They were like, how did this happen?

Because the Russians were coming in like World War II. They were going in, mechanized units. These big, bulky tanks. Getting knocked out. That is not how warfare is going to happen, going forward. It's just not. Everything is changing right now. And it's being test-drove right now in eastern Europe. It's scary.

STU: Is that good? Or bad?
(laughter)
That is the -- I honestly am asking the question today.
(laughter)
I don't know. I don't know.

Like, part of me thinks that like that, this type of thing might end up really lowering body counts, right?

If everyone is -- I mean, it's the Star Wars.

I know this argument was made in Star Wars. I'm aware of it. But like there's an argument that if drones are killing drones, like that's maybe a better place than where we've been over the past century, where it's people that are doing all the dying.

GLENN: I want a T-shirt. Because with what you just asked me. Because that is the question, of our times.

Is that good? Or is that bad?

STU: You can insert the question into every AI question that we have.

GLENN: Everything. Everything. Everything.

The trade, is that good or is that bad?
(laughter)

JASON: I think, when you look at modern warfare, it always ends, in my mind, it goes to the same conclusion that the war planners in World War II had, when they created the nuclear bomb.

It's -- you know, before you look at World War I, it was, you know, massive body counts on both sides. Just take out troops. Then in World War II, they were like, well, let's take out industrial centers.

So then let's deplete the enemy's ability to wage war by hitting it where it starts. Now, the problem is -- or where it's manufactured. The problem is, that's where the city centers are. So that's where the civilians are. So eventually, after you've gotten through all this drone warfare. You know, militaries were decimated on the battlefield.

Eventually, you have to go to where they produce the drones.

You know, you command and control.

That is what Vladimir Putin and his security council are sitting around the table right now. They're sitting, okay. Where are these things being produced?

Where are they being trained? Where are they doing these things? Where are they pushing the button to do those things. Usually, those are in cities, which is a very bad thing. And Russia does a way to counter that and wants to build that far. That's what we're inching towards.

GLENN: Well, they're saying, this is a 7 billion-dollar loss.

I know, this could be propaganda. They're saying, this is a 7 billion-dollar loss. You don't lose $7 billion of strategic air command.

And not respond. I mean, this -- this -- this is not going to drive them to the peace table.

STU: And that's the interesting --

GLENN: What they're getting today. Meeting today. And so what I've heard in some of the coverage is that this was intentionally done before this.

Right? To basically say, I mean, in a way, to say that we do have cards, right?

Like, you don't have any cards to play. Well, we do have cards. That's what they're trying to bring up, into this negotiation point. Essentially, we're not coming from a place of weakness.

GLENN: Yeah. But how do you -- that's a really good point. But how do you, as Vladimir Putin, address your people and say, hey. We just made peace. After they just took down 30 percent of our strategic bombers.

STU: I don't see how you can.

GLENN: I don't either.

JASON: Yeah. And that kind of narrative is kind of crap to me. Because Russia, I think on the same day or the day before. Sent its largest drone arsenal themselves, I think to date, into Ukraine. 500 drones. Or something like that.

STU: Right! My assumption with Russia is that they don't actually want this, right? They're walking down this road of peace talks. But in reality, you know, this isn't, they have not shown a lot of interest in actually solving this, I don't think. Ukraine is I think in another position, where they would like it to be over. But terms that are there, they don't like.

So I don't know that either side really wants this to end, that the moment.

JASON: Yeah. In my mind.

GLENN: Hang on. Hang on. I have to take a break. Then we'll pick this conversation up.

Because there's a lot more to talk about. So stand by. First, let me tell you about the International Fellowship of Christians and Jews.

Why is it after everything, the world still hates the Jews so much.

I mean, there are not that many of them.

What is your deal, World?

Israel defended itself. The world calls it evil. Terrorists, murder innocents, and the world looks away.

Now in America, someone throws firebombs into a pro-Israel crowd that is peaceful in Colorado.
The hate. It's not just there anymore.

What I said would come, in the -- 2009. 2010.

It's here.

In light of this tragic event, the ongoing conflict of Israel.

The International Fellowship of Christians and Jews continues to provide critical support to those affected. They deliver food, medicine, shelter, to Israel's most vulnerable, including Holocaust survivors and families living in war zones.

God help us. I hope that we don't have to start -- I hope we don't have to start directing funds and help here in America.

This has got to stop.

Your support can make a difference. Standing with -- by standing with the fellowship, you are sending a message that will not only hit everybody over in Israel, but it -- it should hit everybody.

You're not going to stand idly by, while Jewish people are snuffed out again.

Your gift of only $45 will help their lifesaving work by helping food, shelter, and so much more.

Get over to Israel.

The Bible says, I will bless those, who bless you.

Support IFCJ.

It's a spiritual stand. It's showing up for God's people when it counts.

Please, call 888-488-IFCJ.

That's (888)488-4325. Or online at IFCJ.org. I will be doing a fundraiser for them tomorrow in West Palm. I leave here today, to make sure I'm there for them

Every dollar helps. Don't wait. Be the difference. Visit IFCJ.org. IFCJ.org. 888-488-IFCJ. Ten-second station ID.
(music)

GLENN: Jason, you were going to respond on -- on what else is coming, and what's happening.

JASON: Yeah. In my mind, I think that both -- this is kind of payback, I think what Stu was saying. I think both countries wanted to show up very big. Or make a very big statement, and, you know, going into these peace talks, and I think that one of them wanted to sit at the table and say, this is what you're looking at, bend to our version of what's written down here, you know, in these list of demands.

Well, Russia didn't expect Ukraine to respond the way it did. So now they have both a strong packet of demands. And I think right now, they're hovering around, both of them want to end this war. Both sides do.

It's not good for either side. And now they're looking at, how do we come out of this? And make it look like that we won. So we can tell our people, hey. This is all -- this all tilted in our favor.

And they don't want to be embarrassed. Specifically on Putin's side. So right now, they're going to go through that multiple different times. This will be a long process. At times, some of them will stand up and say, I'm done with this. Walk away. They will probably come back a week later. But cool thing is this is actually happening.

They're actually sitting down and talking to each other. Even after this weekend.

They're still talking to each other. That was not happening a couple years ago. That's a big improvement.

STU: Big improvement.

GLENN: So tell me about the troops on the border of Finland that have just been moved in. They're mobilizing troops. Do you know anything about that Jason?

JASON: Some interesting movements. In general, Germany, actually deployed I think 5,000 troop deployment, I believe to Lithuania. Not because the EU told him to do that. Not because NATO told him to do that. Germany who does is not like to move troops. Because history is not so great when they deploy.

GLENN: I didn't think they could have troops.

JASON: It's actually something the media hasn't been talking about. But they did that, which I think is part of the Donald Trump leadership. In saying, well, you need to be able to -- you know, police your own neighborhood.

But there are a lot of true moments going around Europe right now. And I actually think that's a good thing. I think that them taking an active role, in showing deterrence and not just relying on us is a positive.

GLENN: Well, it's a good thing for us perhaps. I don't -- I don't like it when Europe mobilizes, and Russia mobilizes.

And Germany is sending troops across borders. I've seen this movie. It didn't work out well, the first war, the second time.

But maybe that's just me.

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