RADIOMay 22, 2025

This tax could WIPE OUT your wealth before you know it

An insane leftist policy that has DESTROYED nations could be coming to YOUR state, Glenn Beck warns. Glenn dives into how unrealized gains taxes work and why they’re devastating. Australia is now installing them. Will a state like California be next?

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: All right. I want to tell you a story here: And it's not just a story. It is actually now happening. In Australia. And it could be coming to a state and a government near you, soon. So let me tell you a story. Let's just call him David. David is not a billionaire. He doesn't have a private jet. He doesn't sip rare wine, you know, or hedge currencies in the caymans, okay?

He's a builder. Literally. He bought some land, let's say, 25 years ago on the edge of town.

No one had ever heard of this town, let alone this area. He poured some concrete. He raised walls. He rented the space to small businesses. And over time, that dusty little outskirt, became a thriving community. He kept the land.

The equity grew.

But he never sold anything.

He just reinvested. He repaired. He paid property taxes. Maybe he developed houses on some of that land. He hired help. Well, today on paper, tasted is worth now $3 million. In real estate assets alone. Okay?

Is that guy a fat cat that's calling the shots that needs to pay their fair share? Or have they already paid their fair share. Because they're just like you. They started with had to go. They worked hard. They invested.

And now they have assets. It's not expendable.

But he's worth $300 million in real estate. Okay. Now, let me tell you the part of the story that goes a little dark. It's called unrealized gains tax. That paper value becomes a real rob.

Because the state now wants to tax him. Not on the money he's made.

They've already done that. But on the theoretical increase in the value of his properties.

Now, he hasn't sold them. He doesn't want to sell them.

But they're going to tax him. Because he's made a profit. But he hasn't. Because he hasn't sold them. It's all on paper, but he has to pay taxes on that profit that is unrealized, he doesn't have. And if his property values plummet the next day, they don't give him the money back.

He just doesn't have to pay any more taxes, because the value has gone down, so he doesn't have to worry about that.

This is not a hypothetical. This is what is happening in Australia right now. A 15 percent tax on unrealized capital gains, for accounts, exceeding $3 million. Okay.

Is there anybody in this audience, that has put money into Bitcoin? And you put maybe a thousand dollars into it, because you're not rich. You put a thousand dollars into it. You put $5,000 into it.
But you really, I mean, it was scary to put that money in.

And you left it alone.

And now, maybe you're approaching $3 million. Now, they're going to tax you when they take that money out, but this is in addition to that! They are going to tax you on the gains!

Not when you take it out. They're going to take you on the gains, that you haven't taken. So if it goes up to 109. And now, all of a sudden, you're in Australia. And that account is now worth $3 million. Guess what!

You now have to pay income tax on that account. So you have to -- what would you do?

What would you do? You just go to your magic money printing machine, that the government would do.

Or do you have to sell something? Maybe the property. Maybe some of the Bitcoin.

And then you never get that money back. If it goes back down, which it will -- if it goes back down, they won't pay you.

Wait a minute, I paid it -- $109,000, and now it's worth 80. Do I get any of my money back? Because I just lost money? No. Uh-uh. No.

Imagine those who lived in California. Who maybe their parents bought a house. And it was $5,000 in 1960.

They still have the house. They can barely afford the taxes on it now, to keep it.

Because it might be worth $3 million, it might be worth $5 million. But it was $5,000 when her parents bought it. And they haven't gone up in their status. They're not hobnobbing it with Bill Gates. They're just regular people, who happened to get on a house from their parents. And they did well with it.

And it's the only asset they really have. But it's worth over $3 million.

Now, how will they pay that tax?
Because now, if it's $4 million.

I got to pay taxes on that. I have to pay 15 percent on that million dollars. Excuse me? I don't have that money! Well, all you have to do is sell your house. Now, let's just follow this logic here.

Consider who wins. Now, who is going to have to really pay this tax?

Is it going to be the ultra wealthy, with the teams of tax attorneys and offshore accounts?

Because they have the means to navigate around the taxes. No, no, no, no. This is going to hit the self-made man.

That's who this is going to hit. The self-made individual. The entrepreneur. The farmer. The small business owner.

They have built their wealth through hard work and prudent investment.

They have -- they have value in that land, that maybe their grandparents bought, and were farmers before them.

And they decided, you know what, I will stay in farming.

And they struggle every day. But now their land is worth over $3 million can. So now they have to pay 15 percent tax on that. In addition. Wait a minute. Wait a minute. Wait a minute. What? And it's assessed every year?

What? So who sells that?

Or who keeps that? What do they do. They have to sell it. Most likely. The average person. Or the entrepreneur. The person that is not the billionaire.

They will have to sell some of those assets, to be able to afford keeping it. To afford just staying in line. And, you know, not going to jail, because you didn't pay your taxes, to the sheriff of Nottingham.

So now you have to sell, and you have to sell at a distressed price.

Who wins?

Who wins?

Because you're forced to sell at a loss, to cover the tax bill. Guess who is standing there, ready to rake in your property?

The billionaires?

The large corporations?

The Bill Gates of the world, that wants more farmland. Hey, it's going for a song.

I can get this now!

That's who wins in this.

It destroys anybody from trying to get ahead!

It destroys them!

It is immoral.

But that's what's happening in Australia. So watch Australia burn itself to the ground!

It's going to start happening. This thing goes into effect, I think in July.

You watch.

Let's see how this works out for Australia.

Now, meanwhile, we have our own problems here. In Washington State, the Democrats who claimed they were all for adding jobs and clean energy.

Have now blocked a nuclear manufacturing plant.

Okay. Good.

If, you know, you work, you strike, it doesn't matter.

Employees now are required to pay union members not to work, if they're on strike.

And governor Ferguson signed the largest tax increase into state law with the passage of the biannual budget. Which he said, we can't -- we can't afford this.

We have to make cuts. We have to compromise. No. He just went for taxes. I mean, the election is over. Let's just go for taxes.

So what happened?

Well, they are already ranked 45 out of 50 states for business climate.

I mean, would you go work?

Would you go set up a new place in Washington State?

Would you start a business? Would you bring your business to Washington State? I wouldn't. I would get the hell out of there. In fact, I'm telling you right now, if you're in Washington State, get the hell out.

Because once they run out of all of this money that they're taxing from people, what they're going to do is say, oh, you're moving? You can't transfer that money out. You will have to pay an exit tax. And that sounds crazy. But it's going to happen. They will trap you and your money in that state.

Because they're already on that path. They already said, if there's another pandemic, they just passed a law in Washington State that says, you will have no right to your own health care. They will tell you what you have to put in your body, what you have to do. How you have to live. All they need is a medical emergency. Don't think they learned anything from COVID, other than how to control people.

So they are -- they just passed House bill 2081. It increases the Business & Occupation. The B&O tax.

This is a tax that taxes you on the gross. Okay? Which is crazy. If you're in business. You don't get that money. I'm being tax odd the gross. Wait a minute. Wait a minute.

I've got things I've got to pay out of that. Tax me on what I take. No, no, no, no. Not good enough for Washington State. We will tax you on the gross.

So if you've got a business, even if your business makes a loss, because you've got bills you're paying, and it's costing you more, you're taxed on what you take in.

Not your net. So even if you lose money, you still have to pay a gross income tax.

Oh, that will work out well.

And the state has just said, it will just be passed on to the consumer. Oh, well, that's even better for the people in Washington!

They also have a new gross surcharge of .5 percent on taxpayers, with the taxable income, over 250 million, which will expire on December 31st, 2029.

Because they're just in this little place now. Don't worry. This -- all these taxes. They're going to stay like this. They're not going to get any worse.

And they will expire anyway. So don't worry about it.

Then they put a massive sales tax expansion on, adding sales tax for the first time for IT services, custom website development, custom software. Security services.

Advertising services. Now need to charge customers, sales tax on every transaction. They also vetoed the removal. The governor did, of the tax preferences for community banks. Let's not help the community panic. No. Let's -- let's help the Fed, and the banks that make up the Fed. You know, the big ones like Citi and all of those banks.

Let's help them put the little banks out.

Okay. Then there's a new gross tax on storage units of almost 2 percent. Let's see. What else?

They increased the capital gains on assets sold. Valued over a million dollars. From seven to 9 percent.

So you don't want to sell your home, better do it quickly. Larger estates, if you have something, $9 million, or up the tax rate now is going from 20 percent to 35 percent capital gains.

What has Washington done for you?

What has the state of Washington done that deserves that increase alone? I'm not talking about your property taxes.

Your state income taxes. But now they're going to take 35 percent of what you've made on your home.

Oh, okay.

Okay. Hmm. It's going to work out well for them.

Meanwhile, California, the Democrats there won't rule out new taxes to pay for health care, for undocumented immigrants.

What are you, crazy. Yes. The answer is yes.

Why do you think gold is going up in price? Why do you think Bitcoin is going up in price?

Why do you think that anything that is outside of this corrupt system is going up in price?

Because the whole world knows, this is not going to last. Now, let me take to you China. And show you what's happening in China, because they're having another problem in China, because they've been doing all these games for longer than we have.

And at which bigger scale. And it's not working there. So let me tell you what the people of China are now doing. Tell me this is not something that you could see happening all around the world.

GLENN: Okay. There's something new in China called rat people. Is it the hybrid of rats and people from the Wuhan lab?

Possibly, that could be coming too. But that is not what this is. These are people who have decided to leave the rat race. Because no matter how they work, they can't ever get ahead. And so they're saying, why would I work?

Why would I work?

They're called netizens. Rat people.

Netizens. Meaning, you're on the net. You're not really citizens. You're more just on the net. And so what are they doing? They're not socializing. They're not leaving their house. They're staying in their house.

Let me give you a blogger, who identifies as a rat person. She starts by explaining, she wakes up at 11:00 a.m. Pretends to be productive by ordering coffee and browsing her phone. Remember, China is watching your phone. At 2:00 p.m. she goes back to sleep. By 5:00 p.m. she gets up, uses the bathroom, collects the coffee delivery left on her doorstep. 6:00 p.m. she has her coffee while watching videos on her phone. 7:00 p.m. she checks her dinner options on her phone and orders takeout. 9:00 p.m. she has her first meal of the day.

One guy said, I have been a -- a rat man now, for five years. I don't socialize at all.

Hmm. This might be exactly what the World Economic Forum said would come. And they would have to, just keep these people entertained on the internet or drug them, because they will be useless eaters. Ah, that's always good. So what is happening? These are people, that basic Gen X-ers. That are like, you can't get ahead.

This is ridiculous! And so they've given up. They think, I don't want to work hard. Because it won't make any difference.

I'm getting out of the rat race. And rat people, the -- the act -- official Chinese language is that they're lying flat. And they say, they're just -- they're not going to do it. Because they can't buy. They can't buy a house.

They can't buy anything nice.

They can't buy anything.

Just, I'm giving up on all of that.

Because my life will always change. Now, China is pushing back on this. As you can imagine, the Chinese Communist Party doesn't like that, because you have a duty to the state to earn. You want to talk about useless eaters. Boy, watch what happens to these rat people. Youth day, which was May 4th. Oh, like May Day. Anyway, there was an article in the Communist Chinese people's daily.

And the -- president, President Xi told young adults, that they have to move to the countryside now, to work and support the party's version of modernization.

So you're going to move whether you like it or not.

And you'll be working. Whether you like it or not. And, you know, you owe it to the country, and to the party, to work.

So we'll make sure that you work.

Now, one person who spoke to the paper, here in America. That, you know, it's The Epic Times, that did not want to give their name. They said a whole generation of young people is babbling for limited opportunities.

Despite the fierce competition, hope is dwindling. That's why everybody chooses now to lie flat, become a rat person. Official data shows, unemployment rate for the 16 to 24-year-old age group in cities is 16.5 percent. But that doesn't include individuals who are enrolled in school, or who have stopped looking for work.

Now, listen to this part: Graduates are now securing positions within the local or state government and any public sector. Jobs are popular there, now, because they have security.

And they earned about $553 a month.

The government grows, as businesses die!

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