RADIOFebruary 23, 2023

Vivek Ramaswamy SLAMS 3 lies about his 2024 presidential run

Most know Vivek Ramaswamy for his involvement in the business, tech, and anti-ESG world. So does he have the political skills needed to successfully lead the country? Ramaswamy, who recently announced his 2024 presidential run, joins Glenn to detail both why he’d make an excellent president and what he would hope to accomplish while in office. Plus, Ramaswamy debunks 3 falsehoods being spread about his career — one of which he calls an outright ‘LIE.’

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Vivek Ramaswamy is on with us.

You know, you could have told me, given me a better clue. We just talked, I think it was on Friday. Said, are you thinking about running for president?

Like, I'm thinking about it.

Come on, you knew.

You knew.

VIVEK: Glenn, I think I said I was very seriously considering it. I think I did on the show.

GLENN: No. We hung up. But I said on the show, he's running. He's absolutely running.

VIVEK: Yeah. Come on. I gave it to you. Absolutely.

GLENN: Vivek, first of all, you were not known as a politician, or somebody who has ever done this.

You're known as a CEO. We'll get into that. What is it that your platform -- look, like on -- with Russia. What would you do as president, with what we're going through right now with Ukraine?

VIVEK: I think foreign policy is all about prioritization, Glenn. I would not spend another dollar on Ukraine. I would re-prioritize that to take on the number one foreign policy challenge. Which is Declaration of Independence from communist China.

I think we can declare economic independence, and defeat them economically, so we don't have to militarily. That's number one.

And at number two, if there's a youth case for the U.S. military and weapons, it is actually to protect our border and to take on, and I would go so far as to say, decimate the cartels, 100,000 fentanyl deaths in the United States today.

Eighty percent of which comes from Southern border crossings. Deal with that. Protect our soil here. We could do that for a refraction, Glenn, of the cost that it takes to, you know, fight a foreign war, on the ear side of the world. That has far fewer American interests to it.

I was in New Hampshire yesterday, and actually one of the things that surprised me, Glenn, was how broad the support for that idea for policy profits is.

And it's amazing, because the defense establishment doesn't -- says, you can't say that in polite company. But that gives you a sense for where I am on foreign policy.

GLENN: So let me ask you, Vivek, the -- Donald Trump was an outsider, he came in. And he's told me, several times, personally, he had no -- he knew it was bad.

But he had no idea, that he wouldn't be able to trust a soul, in Washington. He had no idea, how deep the Deep State was.

And how powerful it was.

What makes you think, you could go in, and rock everyone's world.

VIVEK: Well, he's told me the same thing, and he's a friend. And honestly, I take inspiration of what he did in 2015. I just think we have to take this to the next level. Part of this will just have to be shutting agencies down, full stop. Now, are there costs and benefits to that?

Yes. But I think we live in moments, where the benefits outlive those costs.

GLENN: So when you say shut the agencies down, what agencies are you talking about?

VIVEK: Department of Education. Let's start there. I was speaking to the Iowa legislature this morning, congratulating them for what they did in school choice in Ohio.

I said, they need to eliminate the Department of Education.

Many other three-letter acronyms. Even much of the national security apparatus, Glenn, has to be shut down and replaced in those cases with something new.

Because when a managerial rot runs so deep, you can't reform it by putting a different figurehead at the top.

You have to shut it down, and build something new to take its place.

And here's the other thing: I can say that Donald Trump knows this just as well as I do, from being a CEO.

If you can't fire somebody who works for you, that means they don't work for you.

It means, you work for them. You are their slave.

We need to replace these civil service protections, with sunset clauses. Saying that, you know what, if I can't be the next president of the United States and work for the federal government, for more than eight years, than neither should anybody who works for me, either.

Those federal bureaucrats have to be subject to eight-year sunset clauses.

GLENN: How are you going to get that done?

I mean, you have to have -- you have to have a Congress, that has the balls to do these things. And I'm not sure you have the Congress on either side of the aisle.

You've got a few.

VIVEK: Glenn, you're asking all the right questions, right? So I take a strong view of the Constitution here.

Article II of the Constitution says that the president of the United States, runs the federal government, period.

So if Congress isn't willing to act. As president, I am. And I have studied the Supreme Court. And the composition of the Supreme Court right now.

You want to take this one and test it in the Supreme Court with me? Great. We can then use judicial president to make sure we lock that in.

I believe that Clarence Thomas, and others on the court today, will be right there with me, on my view of Article II and how that reads in the Constitution, to say that a lot of these other -- constitutional statutes. From the impoundment prevention act of 1974. That says that the president has to spend money on specific agencies that greatest has actually authorized to spend it on. That's authorization, not a mandate.

Firing civil service protections, as I said, if you're running the federal government, under articles of the Constitution, the president runs the executive branch.

I take the Constitution seriously. And, you know what, I think the friendly way to do it is to leave Congress.

I personally think that 2024 can actually be landslide election, Glenn.

A topic for another day. I'm optimistic about that.

But if we don't get it done that way, we will get it done through executive authority, per what the Constitution empowers a president to do.

This is once again, America first. I'm all in as an America first conservative.

We just have to take this to the next level, with what I'm repeatedly now calling America first, 2.0.

And that's a big part of the reason, I'm doing this.

GLENN: So why did you -- you said you were Libertarian.

Why -- why did you decide you were a Republican?

A conservative? Over a Libertarian?

VIVEK: I used to be a Libertarian in college. I had this discussion with the folks in New Hampshire too.

There were a couple of Libertarians that came to one of my rallies last night. But here's the thing: Libertarians, I got two issues.

One is, they're too meek, actually. So they'll talk about the free market.

And they say, they don't want to make political expression a civil right, as I believe we need to in this country. Yet, they don't actually touch the other protected classes, like race or sex or religion or national origin.

To my view, to Libertarians today, with all due respect, have their heads in the sand.

Because you can't have it both ways. That's problem number one. The problem number two is deeper. Which is, you know, what are we doing, in that free world?

Even when the state is out of our hair. There's still the deeper question of purpose, as citizens. How we live our lives. How we live virtuous lives.

And I care about virtue, in civic life and in family life, and in faith-based life too. Not to say that the governments should necessarily be involved or mandating those things.

But those things matter for human flourishing, for American flourishing, and Libertarianism has nothing to say about that.

That is why I call myself a conservative today, in contrast to 15 years ago, when I thought I was a cool kid in college, calling myself a libertarian.

GLENN: So we're talking to Vivek Ramaswamy.

He's running for president of the United States. As a Republican.

We've gotten to know each other, over the World Economic Forum. And ESG.

And you are not only one of the biggest voices against it. You are actually -- you've put into action, strive management.

Where you are saying, invest with us.

We'll do better with your money than BlackRock.

And we're going to use the voting rights, that we get, to try to tell these companies, don't do these woke things.

But there's some charges out about you. That I just like to hear you answer.

You were nominated and selected, as a World Economic Forum young global leader in '21.

Did --

VIVEK: Glenn, this is hilarious. This is hilarious. Thank you for this opportunity. This is actually a lot of fun for me. Look, there are a lot of people on the right and the left that are threatened by my entry into this race.

So I welcome the opportunity to have this debate in the open. All right?

I think you know this.

I don't like to boast about myself. But I would go so far to say, no one. And I mean, no one in this country has been a bigger both doer and crusader against the World Economic Forum agenda, than probably the two of us on this call.

I really mean it. I would challenge anybody to name one for me. If you really pressed me.

I would name maybe Elon Musk. And guess what, he's named on that sanely website, of the World Economic Forum. Somebody else, financially.

Friend, Peter Thiel. He's been named on that same website. You want to know why? Here's the dirty little secret. Though -- and I have seen it firsthand. I experienced it firsthand. The World Economic Forum names you on their website without your permission.

So the funny part is, I have a book coming out later this year. Where I actually detailed this experience.

I have phone calls, emails. And I was respectful about it.

I believe in being civil. But I said, do not name me on your website, because I do not accept your award. I don't want to speak at your conference.

They tell me, no, no, no. You don't understand. We have all the global billionaires here. Mark Zuckerbuck was a young global fellow.

No, no, no, Vivek, you don't understand. This is an honor. I respectfully disagree. I don't want to be named. And I don't want to accept your award.

And then they go on to put my name on their website anyway. They've asked me to speak here, and that kind of thing.

I declined. But the funny thing about me. And I've learned a little bit about how this partisan politics game works. You know, Trump spoke at the World Economic Forum in Davos, in 2018 and 2019.

Do I hold that against him?

No. You want to know why, because everyone who is as financially successful as me or Donald Trump or Elon Musk or whatever, gets invited to speak. In my case, I've said no. This has been my focus area.

It would not have made sense for me to do it. In Trump's case, he said, yes, I don't hold that against him.

But I think it just reveals, you know, one of the things that has been eye-opening to me, about the online version of the conservative movement. The rise of these click bait conservatives. That it is sort of sad. Want to mislead their followers to advance what agenda, I don't know.

But at the end of the day, I also don't want to complain about it.

One of the big leagues of presidential politics. It's well-known, it is a dirty game. But it's good to keep your eye on the facts. And there's no -- this agenda than me.

GLENN: Well, I can verify one thing. The world economical forum has me on a list too. And they won't take me off that list either.

So it's just not the same kind of list.

BRAD: They can do it.

GLENN: I know. So the next thing is, that you have a long time association with Soros.

And I'm probably the number one anti-Soros guy in the world.

VIVEK: Can I give you a one-word answer to that question, Glenn?

I know you're the number one anti-Soros guy. So I'm not saying false to you. I'm saying false to the long-time association with George Soros.

Lie. 100 percent lie.

Now, let me actually give you guys the facts. And again, this -- these click bait conservatives online.

I don't know if they feel threatened or whatever. And they need to make up stuff.

I was 25 years old. When I went to law school. I got a scholarship funded by Paul Soros, not George Soros. But Paul Soros.

That allowed me at the age of 25, to pay for law school, and I took it.

You want to know why? Because I'm smart.

Now, it's hilarious to me, that the same people who bring that back up from when I was 25 years old, taking a scholarship, funded partially by somebody who is related to George Soros, don't say a word about the fact, that, again, Donald Trump, who I love. Who I respect. I'm not criticizing him. Took 160-million-dollar loan from not Paul Soros, but George Soros himself.

I have no problem with this. You want to know why?

Because it's business.

Donald Trump knows what he's doing. I don't think he's corrupted by that.

I'm not criticizing him for it. He's a friend. But I think it's funny. And I think it's revealing, that these same people will talk about a 25-year-old dude taking a scholarship to help him pay for law school from a relative of George Soros. Make a big deal out of that, without saying a peep about Donald Trump taking 165 million-dollar loan for George Soros, and I say that as a friend and somebody who respects Donald Trump.

Because I don't think that that disqualifies him or taints him in any way, because he's a man of integrity. And he's doing business the way he knows how.

But I think when you're in positions like I've been or Donald Trump has been, you get that. I think, you know, if you're sitting online on Twitter, it can be a very different story.

GLENN: All right. I have one more question in this line here. And that is: You're -- you're a biotechnical guy. And in bed with big pharmaceuticals.

And big proponent of mRNA shots.

And, you know, you -- you have -- you've never critiqued Pfizer.

VIVEK: So let me -- let me say a couple things. First of those things is true.

I'm a biotech guy. I am proud of my success in biotech. Glenn, five of the medicines I worked on, personally oversaw in the company I founded. Are FDA products today.

That is now a multi-billion-dollar company. A seven-billion-dollar company that I led as CEO.

One of those drugs is a drug for prostate cancer. Another for women's health conditions, for endometriosis, to Uterine fibroids, to psoriasis. To one that is particularly touching for me.

I say an approved therapy for kids, who are born with a genetic disease that caused them to die by the age of two, at a 100 percent fatality rate by the age of 2 or 3. Now a majority of them have an opportunity to live lives of potentially a normal duration.

I'm proud of those things, Glenn. I will not apologize. That is part of what makes America great, and it's part of what makes innovation great, is it empowers human beings to live better lives.

That is not an association with anything other than human innovation and a commitment to actually making people prosper by addressing diseases and treating them.

Now, the idea that I am a proponent of some sort of vaccination agenda. No, I'm on the record right now.

I oppose vaccine mandates. I think there has been a lot of rampant government lying and mistrust. Appropriately shown to the American public. Because of how badly they handled this issue.

But I think we can't go to a place where we say that now we don't want people working on innovative medicines to treat diseases from prostate cancer, to psoriasis, to genetic conditions in children.

No. I think we have to stand up for the innovation that makes us who we are. And I'm proud of what I accomplished.

GLENN: All right. Talking to Vivek Ramaswamy. Back with him in just a second.

Jim wrote in about his experience with Relief Factor.

He said, I used to have extreme lower-back pain.

Nothing I tried ever touched it.

Then I heard about Relief Factor. Decided to give it a try. Relief Factor worked so well, and so quickly. It eliminated the pain. Allowing me to function better than I have even before. Thank you so much, Relief Factor.

Jim, thanks for writing in. If you or somebody you love are dealing with pain. Please, give Relief Factor a try.

It's natural. It works with your body. It's not a drug. So you won't be whacked out. And it has four key ingredients, that work with your body to fight inflammation. Which is the cause of most of our pain. The three-week Quick Start. Now 19.95.

It's a trial pack. And hundreds of thousands of people have ordered Relief Factor. And 70 percent of them go on to order more. It's ReliefFactor.com. Or call 1-800-4-Relief. 800-4-Relief. ReliefFactor.com. Feel the difference. Ten-second station ID
(music)

GLENN: Let me go back to your platform. A good friend of ours, David Harsanyi, has pushed back a bit on one of your platform policies. I would like to hear your response.

STU: Yeah. I think some respectful questioning, about one of your policy proposals, Vivek, about making political ideas a protected right.

I think there's a lot of appeal to conservatives, who continually get fired from their jobs, over what they believe.

He says, though. You're -- we could have some negative side effects. He says, your idea would potentially make it illegal for not only for Disney to fire a social conservative, but for a Jewish restaurant to sever its restaurant with a neo-Nazi, or a hedge fund would be compelled to keep a Trotskyite, who believe profits are evil on the payroll. Or Walmart having to wait for the worker who spends his days trying to put big box chains out of business, to leave on his own volition. How do you walk this line?

Because, obviously, there's a lot of really negative consequences coming from this. But does -- if we make this a civil right, does it go too far?

VIVEK: Great question. These are the things that we should actually be talking about. Great question. Thank you.

Here's what I would say: I would give Congress a choice. Either you repeal the protected classes as they exist. Okay?

Race, sex, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, and you actually leave it to the free market. Or you have to apply those standards evenhandedly. But you cannot have it both ways.

And since this is -- I know who I'm talking to. A pretty sophisticated counterpart here, and Glenn in particular understands this. I know.

Let me explain how those civil rights laws and protected classes created the conditions for viewpoint discrimination. Okay?

GLENN: We have two minutes.

VIVEK: Yeah. So Lyndon Johnson thought it was just prohibiting discrimination on the base of race.

But they've now been interpreted to say, that includes hostile work environments against religious minorities. What's one of the ways you can create a hostile work environment?

It's by wearing a Trump hat to work. It's by saying the wrong thing on social media. So ironically, the law created the conditions for a viewpoint-based discrimination, while leaving political viewpoints unprotected.

So you can't have it both ways. If you can't fire somebody for being black or gay or Muslim or white or Jewish or whatever, you should not be able to fire somebody for being an outspoken conservative either.

We have to apply these standards, evenhandedly. And if you want to get rid of protected classes altogether, great. I'll have that conversation. But no Republican or anybody else is willing to.

So in the meantime, I think we need to bring civil rights into the 21st century, to protect political expression as a civil right.

GLENN: All right. Vivek, I love the fact that you're running. I -- I support anybody who is standing up for the Constitution. Standing up for the right of people. Standing up against the endless wars and the lies. And you just are just able to run for president, are you not?

Didn't you just have a birthday? What are you, 36? Thirty-seven?

VIVEK: Two years ago. Thirty-seven. Thirty-seven.

GLENN: Thirty-seven.

Yeah. That would be a shocking change from what we had traditionally. Since really Clinton. And I think he was in his 40s.

STU: I only want people above 100 years old to run for president. Yes, I think we should go the other direction. I'm sorry, Vivek.

GLENN: All right. Vivek Ramaswamy.

We'll talk to you again. Thank you so much.

You can find out more, at Vivek V-I-V-E-K2024.com. Vivek2024.com. V-I-V-E-K2024.com.

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