Video of the dayMay 15, 2025

Rand Paul: Trump Just Had His “Tear Down This Wall” Moment

President Trump’s trip to Saudi Arabia and the Middle East was historic for many reasons. But Glenn and Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) agree that perhaps the biggest moment was when he denounced “western intervention” and “so-called nation builders.” Gone are the days of a system that led to endless wars and destroyed nations. Instead, Trump is aiming to let nations develop themselves through good trade relations. Sen. Paul also comments on Boeing’s Air Force One delays, Qatar’s plane offer, why he can’t support Congress’ current version of Trump’s “Big, Beautiful Bill,” and what might be in store for Dr. Fauci regarding COVID investigations.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: We welcome to the program Rand Paul, senator from the great state of Kentucky.

Rand, I want to play something for you. And in yesterday's speech, which I think should have been like a Libertarian's dream. It was mine.

Listen to this.

DONALD: And it's crucial for the wider world to know, this great transformation is not coming from Western interventionalists, or flying people in beautiful planes. Giving you lectures on how to live. And how to govern your own affairs. No. The gleaming marbles of Riyadh and Abu Dhabi, was not created by the so-called nation builders, neocons, or liberal nonprofits like those who spend trillions and trillions of dollars failing to develop cabal, Baghdad, so many other cities.

Instead, the birth of a modern Middle East has been brought by the people of the region themselves. The people that are right here. The people who have lived here all their lives, developing your own sovereign countries, pursuing your own unique visions, and charting your own destinies and your own way.

It's really incredible what you've done. In the end, the so-called nation builders wrecked far more nations than they built. And the interventionalists were intervening in complex societies.

That they did not even understand themselves. They told you, you had to do it. But they had no idea how to do it themselves.

Peace, prosperity, and progress ultimately came not from a radical rejection of your heritage, but rather, from embracing your national traditions and embracing that same heritage, that you love.

So dearly.

GLENN: Rand Paul, what did you think of that?

RAND: Pretty amazing. You know, there have been so many times, when I've heard President Trump speak, or seen his actions on foreign policy, that have been -- oh, my goodness. This is the best president we've had in my lifetime.

GLENN: I know. I thought he sounded almost like Washington at that point.

Just like, do it yourself. We're not here to tell you what to do. I haven't heard that ever, from any president.

RAND: And this is why the Bush wing hates Donald Trump so much as an establishment. Because these are the people who wanted to spend freedom at the point of a gun everywhere, they thought they were going to shape the world for democracy, which is a sort of leftover Woodrow Wilson idea. But, no. This is the part of Donald Trump I completely embrace, encourage, and will defend, and defend on a daily basis.

GLENN: So I said earlier today. That part of that speech was as significant as the Gorbachev tear down this wall speech. Agree or disagree?

RAND: I agree. It's incredibly significant to say, you know, we've helped these relationships, not by bossing around the world. Not by intervening. But by basically, you know, trading, and he didn't use the word trade. He could have.

But basically, having trade and good relations with these countries that had to develop themselves.

GLENN: So while we're there, why don't we talk about -- why don't we talk about, I don't know, trading nothing for 400 million-dollar airplane.

Where do you stand on this gift from Qatar?

RAND: You know, you can't take gifts, unless they're approved by Congress. I think Jefferson was offered something. And Congress actually voted against Thomas Jefferson being allowed to keep it. But you can't do it. I mean, it just -- and it's going to set up the appearance of impropriety whether Congress will protect him or not.

Possibly. But the other thing is, we're the world's largest arms merchant. We sell arms by the billions, everywhere throughout the Middle East. We populate the heads of every war on the planet.

And so Qatar is a big recipient of arms from us, and so we make these decisions. And the president pretty much makes them on his own.

Congress has the chance to object, and I've objected in the past with arms, when I felt like -- particularly when the Journalist Khashoggi was killed by the Saudis. I thought we should have laid off arms for a while, and somebody should have had to pay some penance over that.

GLENN: Great.

RAND: And so I've tried to block different arms sales before, but there's a potential that the administration's protectiveness will be codified over a million dollar plane. There are also practical concerns as well.

One of them is, is where are we on the one that they have ordered? And it's already made. And they're just upgrading it, you know, putting the electronics, defensive weapons on Air Force One, and they're within six months of being completed.

Qatar's plane would have to be completely outfitted. It will probably have to be stripped down on the inside, completely reconfigured. And has to have the special stuff, the way it's classified.

GLENN: Yeah, it's two to five years just to finish it.

RAND: It may be that the other plane is actually closer to being finished.

Boeing is disappointing on so many fronts. But they haven't had this plane, since I think it was commissioned by the first President Trump. And four years later, still not there. It's really a disappointment. But we have to know more about it. The thing is, if he really wants this plane, and it's a great plane.

The Qataris can sell it, or give it back to Boeing. And Boeing can work with us, and we could pay a price. And then we would mediate all of this.

If he takes every family transaction that they have had in the Middle East for the last ten years or the next ten years, it will be heavily scrutinized. And I think it doesn't come to any good.

GLENN: Yes. So what do you think about the possibility -- and this may be giving him too much benefit of the tout.

But the guy is playing 15-dimensional chess it seems, in so many ways.

He -- I spoke to him about the Boeing plane a few weeks ago, and he was smoked.

And, you know, we -- we began our participation in and ended World War II in a quicker time than we have ordered that plane in 2018, to today.

So it's -- I mean, it -- what is Boeing doing?

And he's saying, and others are saying, that it may be five years from now. May be even ten!

What about the idea that he is just trying to push the pressure on Boeing, and like, get it done!

VOICE: Boeing has become an extension of the government. They're a government bureaucracy. And they behave like it.

Now, look, I think the Empire State Building was build in a year. China right now is, what's that?

GLENN: Ten months.

RAND: Yeah. Ten months. China can erect a 30-story building in a matter of 2 or 3 months. I mean, it's amazing how fast things can be done. And Boeing can't make a plane in four years, and some other planes don't fly. And so that is a problem. If you're a plane manufacturer and they don't fly. It's because Boeing is such a slow ponderous corporation. It's been, you know, had a monopoly on sort of government planes for so long. That near being outcompeted internationally.

And just slow. And so I see them more as an extension of government bureaucracy, than I do as a real capitalism. But no company could get away with being this poor, this slow moving, if there was a real marketplace.

GLENN: So what do you do to solve it? Because I think that is the real solution.

I feel like the former Soviet Union, when Gorbachev or anybody else would get into a ZiL. You're like, oh, that's nice.

That will break down halfway to the airport.

You know, what do we do?

Boeing, you can't sue Boeing. The president can't sue Boeing. The country can. How do you fix this?

RAND: Here's the interesting thing. This intersects with the discussion over trade. Some would say, that's what we do.

We protect Boeing. Protect them from international trade.

What if we did this? What if we got rid of the trade barriers, and we let all the international companies compete with Boeing? Boeing would have to get better or go bankrupt.

So they're inefficient because they are protected. Some would say that that's what happened to US steel over many generations. What if we do protect US steel. We've had steel import quotas for generations. We've tried to do whatever we can to block international steel from coming here. And yet, all it did was it led to a large behemoth of US steel that was about like Boeing was. And it would react to the marketplace.

GLENN: Let me talk to you about government aircraft. Military aircraft.

We have to have an aircraft company.

RAND: I agree.

GLENN: What can we do?

Because honestly, the right thing for the president to do is sue Boeing. Look, you violated our entire contract.

It means nothing. I'm going elsewhere.

He can't sue Boeing. Because that would be very bad. The second thing, he has no choice, but to buy American.

So how do we solve this know.

RAND: The other thing, I guess you could do, you could reduce what they're paid.

For example, if the government said, we're giving them a billion. 500 million. Whatever it is.

That should be in every contract too.

And, you know, I think Elon Musk was a big promoter of this. When he started building rockets to take satellites into space.

He said, you know, the problem you guys have is its cost, plus. So everybody just keeps inflating their costs, and they always get the same profit or bigger profit, if they have cost overrun. Make competitive bidding, and put penalties in your contracts. So Boeing should have penalties in the contract.

If you want another airline or another company to make planes in the US, I'm perfectly happy to vote for no corporate taxes on some of the planes in competition with Boeing.

Just no corporate taxes, period. Ten years, 20 years. It would take a lot. It takes a lot of money to get started in that field.

Look, Elon Musk started from scratch. Maybe ten years ago. Building rockets. So you think somebody couldn't. Like Elon Musk, start building planes. I guarantee you, if Elon weren't so tied up with other things, if you said, Elon, why don't you start a plane company to compete with Boeing, I bet he would have it started within a year.

GLENN: Yeah, he would. Quickly, do you have time? Because I want to talk to you about the big, beautiful bill, and also Fauci. Do you have a second to hold on for one minute?

RAND: Absolutely.
GLENN: All right. Let me tell you about Relief Factor. They call it Quick Start. It's a three-week pack from Relief Factor. And if you've been living with pain, might be the most important 21 days of your year.

Day one, you're skeptical. You know, you've tried other things.

Day three, you start to notice maybe something. Pain is not gone, but it's not maybe as loud.

But you're moving a little freer. Sleeping a little better. By week two, you're starting to get a little hopeful.

You're waking up without that brace for impact feeling. And by day 21, a lot of people who try it. Are just feeling better. They are back to doing things that they stopped doing entirely.

Mine took about six weeks. I mean, I felt the difference in about three.

But in six weeks, it was like, oh, what happened?

It's not magic. It's not even a drug. It's natural. Anti-inflammatory pack that goes to the root of the pain.

Change your life right now. Call American -- call Relief Factor now. At 1-800-4-Relief. 1-800-4-Relief. Why didn't I -- good commercial copy, just changed to something else. Relief Factor.

1-800-4-Relief. ReliefFactor.com.

All right. Ten-second station ID. Back to Rand Paul.

I know you're giving us extra time. And I really appreciate that, Rand. But let's talk about the one big, beautiful bill. How do you feel about it?

RAND: Well, you know, the tax cuts from 2017, I supported. I support making them permanent. And really, I'm very supportive of the president's program on the tax plan.

That's a big part of the bill. The second part of the bill is there's supposed to be spending cuts. So far, I think they're pretty wimpy and not going to amount to much.

That's bothersome. But I would still vote for it.

Even if I got some spending cuts and that's confirmed. The reason I can't vote for it is because they will raise the debt ceiling $5 trillion.

And the reason I can't vote for that, is that it belies. It really contradicts everything about what would be in the hearing. We hear about Elon Musk and DOGE and all these cuts.

And we're all jumping up and down from our seats for Donald Trump. And then the deficit is going to be 2.2 trillion at the end of September. And then it's another 2.8 billion -- 2.8 trillion the next year. They're planning on adding $5 trillion in eight years. Which means there's going to be no reform. And conservatives are going to wake up at some point in this administration, going wow. Where did all these cuts go? What happened? We haven't seen them in a while.

And how come the deficit is going up at just an alarming rate? In the past, conservatives have never voted to raise the debt ceiling. It's always been all Democrats and the big government Republicans, and we know who they are. And we've always derided them. And it was a day of shame. The day of shame, you walked down to the well of the Senate or the House, and you vote for all the spending that you put forward. But most of the conservatives. Particularly myself and others. We haven't voted for the spending. And we don't want to vote for the debt.

Now, I have said I will vote for some increase in the debt.

I will give you three months' worth.

So I introduced an amendment about two weeks ago, increase the debt ceiling, three months' worth.

You know how much that is? $500 billion.

GLENN: Jeez.

RAND: That's an enormous increase. And it hurt me to even put it forward, but I did say this: We will give you three months. You're all promising me, we will cut some spending. We have a balanced budget.

We will do all these great things. I tell you what, proof is in the pudding. I'll give you three months for the borrowing power, then you come back and ask me again for four months.

So I would do the opposite. I would have a debt ceiling vote every three months, and it would be a lever. And we would only give you an increase in the debt ceiling if you were actually cutting spending. And people say, what about default? Default should never be on the table.

GLENN: That's -- that's fake. We're never going to default.

RAND: Yeah, well, we bring in 400 billion a month in revenue. And the interest payment is 80 billion. Why would you ever default? We should announce to the markets that we have plenty of money. And if we have to cut spending elsewhere, we will. But we won't default on our interest payment. There's no reason ever to. And this is a game they play, just to get everybody to vote for them. To scare the market to death. And scare everybody to death. And they will say, we will default and there will be chaos. There's no reason to default. We will just cut spending elsewhere. And we will take the first dollars we get, and towards the interest payment.

GLENN: This is the thing. I'm so mad at Congress right now.

I mean, they won't even go through with the DOGE cuts. They are -- they're arguing about those. And honestly, the DOGE cuts in the end, seem a little disappointing.

You know, they're not taking the steps that I thought we all voted for.

RAND: Well, the DOGE cuts are some of the lowest hanging fruit. I'm all for them.

They went to the foreign aid budget. And they found crazy stuff.

You know, 2 million for sex change operations in Guatemala.

GLENN: Right.

RAND: Hundreds of thousands for a trans comic book, a trans opera in Colombia.

And, you know what, they have it in the rescission package.

The White House has had this rescission package about four weeks now. It's only 9 billion.

So it's not enough to amount to anything, but it's still worth cutting. They're afraid to send it to the Capitol.

Because the feedback they're getting from Senate and House leadership is we don't have the votes to cut 9 billion.

And if that's true, these people need to -- the reason we sent the vote, so everybody knows who these people are.

Who are the people that can't cut out 2 million for sex changes in Guatemala?

You can't do that. They need to be ridden out of town on a rail.

GLENN: Can you give us some indication of how long we have?

I mean, people have been saying, it's going to get bad. It's going to get bad.

We are really, truly at the end. If we don't cut our spending.

How much time do we have to cut our spending before we're just overwhelmed by interest payments?

RAND: I think it depends on what the interest rate is. For many, many years, we have gotten away with this. The George W. Bush, we went 5 -- 5 trillion in debt to 10 trillion. Our interest payment went from four to two, and then everybody was gleeful, even the Dick Cheney conservatives. Like, oh, that doesn't matter.

Well, if you keep cutting your interest rate now, and doubling your debt, you can get away with it.

But now we're stuck at the opposite end. We're 36 trillion in debt. And the interest rate is going up.

Now, it stabilized a little bit. But interest rates went where they were in 1990. When I bought my first house, it was 11 percent.

Probably pay a little less than that. Maybe nine. Maybe eight. We couldn't pay it. We couldn't pay it today. So it depends on the interest rate. The interest rates now, we're struggling. Interest payments is the largest item in the budget, and it's crowding out other spending. So we are struggling. We bring in 5 trillion in revenue, and we spend 7 trillion.

The entire budget that Congress votes on, which is almost 2 trillion, is all borrowed. So the discretionary spending, what government votes on, military and non-military discretionary, it's all borrowed.

The entitlements soak up every dollar of revenue. We are in a bad way. I can't tell you when it ends, but I can tell you, if interest rates spike, we will be in a serious problem.

GLENN: Yeah. I now only have about 40 seconds.

I would love to have you back. Can you just tell me, is anyone going to pay for the COVID thing? Is that ever going to happen?

RAND: We're not done, and I will bring Anthony Fauci back in. We finally discovered the records, as to who determined that the money went to Wuhan. They have resisted me for three years. Robert Kennedy has helped me get the records. So was Jay Bhattacharya. This week or next week, we will begin interviewing the people who are on that committee. We are going to find out what was the debate?

What was the discussion. What were the arguments for sending it to Wuhan? What were the arguments against it?

Who made the arguments?

And then who ultimately had to sign off on this.

It was our belief that Anthony Fauci had to sign the document. We haven't found the document yet.

GLENN: Yeah. Thank you. Rand. Rand Paul.

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