Glenn Beck: Proof Governments shouldn't run businesses

Gretchen Carlson

GLENN: From Radio City in Midtown Manhattan, third most listened to show in all of America. Hello, you sick twisted freak. Welcome to the program. Glad you're here. Yesterday on the TV program well, let me start earlier than that. Gretchen Carlson who is on Fox and Friends, she's the one in the middle. She's the girl. And I went in yesterday and she was she had a bee in her bonnet and it was all about I'm sorry for the bee in the bonnet thing. Stu just looked at me. I'm sorry, I think I did get that from the Ingalls family growing up. I'm sorry. So she was all up in arms because of the bailouts and what's going on with the auto industry. Well, as I continued to talk to her, I realized that her family owns a car dealership and has for 90 years, and it's a successful, profitable one. Made 103% of their goal last year. And now all of a sudden they made the first round of cuts. Now all of a sudden they're out of business. Meanwhile Gretchen finds out that somebody who didn't make the first round of cuts meets with a congressman or senator. We'll get the story from her. And all of a sudden they're back open for business. What is going on in our country? Gretchen Carlson is with us now. Is this your mom and dad, Gretchen, on the phone?

CALLER: I hope they're with me. They are in Minnesota. I'm here in my office in New York. And by the way, I don't mind the bee in the bonnet because Little House on the Prairie was from Minnesota.

GLENN: See what I mean? See what I mean? Hi, Karen and Lee, how are you?

CALLER: Pretty good, pretty good, thank you.

CALLER: We're both here.

GLENN: Good. Wow, Lee, you are I mean, Karen, you sound like my mom there. My parents were from or my grandparents and my mother was from Minnesota, and you just, that was a flashback there for a second.

CALLER: Well, but she's probably just as proud of you as we are of our daughters.

GLENN: No, uh uh, no, I don't think so. Anyway, so tell me the story here, Lee. Your father

CALLER: Yes, sir.

GLENN: Or was it your father started the business?

CALLER: He started the business back in 1919 on Memorial Day and it was a Dodge dealership and they immediately turned it into a Chevrolet dealership and then over the years they acquired other lines like Buick, Olds, Cadillac. And we had those for many, many years and then we became what they call a metro dealer and we built a new store, and the rules at that time were you could only really have one line to be a metro store and so we went to bat and we were able to keep Cadillac and we gave up Buick and Olds. And so we've been sitting here now for 31 years in a new building and operating selling Chevrolets and Cadillacs.

GLENN: Okay. Now, Gretchen tells me that you guys made the first round of cuts.

CALLER: That's right.

GLENN: And then you didn't make the second round.

CALLER: No. We got the registered letter and the FedEx and the first sentence says we are not renewing your Chevrolet or your Cadillac franchise. And then went on to explain.

GLENN: You've been in business for 90 years?

CALLER: Yep.

GLENN: 103% of goal last year?

CALLER: Yep.

CALLER: And we haven't had a losing month since the Eighties when there was 21% interest rate, you know, on anyone that bought a car. And even through all this, and the interesting thing is that we know for sure that some dealers who were kept are losing money. And the other kind of upsetting thing is the one that was given the dealership back, it seems somewhat political because it's very hard to determine. I don't think any of the big conglomerates, i.e., the dealers who owned six, seven, eight, nine, ten franchises in around the Minneapolis area, this particular person that was cut and was reinstated is one of those. Otherwise it's hard to tell if any of them have lost a dealership. But they have a gag order on you. You are not supposed to tell. And Mr. Henderson said, well, he is not going to tell because he doesn't want to ruin your business. Well, when you get a letter, FedEx on a day that they determine you are going to get the letter, it's only fair to your employees to let them know what it says. We can't go around pretending. Because you can't appeal if you done tell, either. So that's what happened to us.

GLENN: Okay. Did they have any criteria in did they have any reason why they cut you guys?

CALLER: Well, they claim that they have some criteria like profitability, sales, your capital standard, if you have enough capital in the business, your customer satisfaction. But they won't say which one they are using or if it was a conglomeration of them or if it was something else or if it was your location. I think that was, too.

GLENN: How are you doing on all of those?

CALLER: Well, we're wonderful. We're way over our percentage of where we should be capitalized. We've been profitable. And our CSI, in fact in our sales CSI, I think we're the top dealer in the city of Minneapolis if not second or third and our service is in line with everybody else. And it could be location. They are looking at where these dealerships are placed and what kind of a number of people that we're representing. And I suppose that might have had something to do with it.

CALLER: Yeah, but we're on the freeway with 13 acres.

GLENN: Wait, wait, wait. What do you mean what kind of people you represent?

CALLER: Numbers of people, I suppose, in our area of influence.

CALLER: Glenn, my dad's being too nice.

GLENN: Yeah, tell me, Gretchen.

CALLER: Well, this is why my dad's been so successful in business. Because everybody loves him. And this is why this will be a humongous blow to this community because everyone knows that (inaudible) run this dealership to the Nth degree and they will give you the best service possible. My dad's being too kind because they don't know why they were cut, Glenn.

CALLER: No, we don't.

CALLER: What they are telling you is that they are profitable and I interviewed two more dealers on Fox and Friends this morning who are also profitable and they don't know why they were cut. So when is America going to wake up and say that they want answers about why free enterprise is under assault in America. That's what I want to know.

CALLER: Well, and here's the thing. About three weeks ago or two weeks ago before they said they were going to cut all these dealers you had, you know, 13 acres, you had your building, we have a body shop, we're profitable, we employ about 85 people, sometimes up to 100 full time, healthcare, everything. And you had a certain worth to your dealership which obviously was a fair amount. All of a sudden and last Tuesday we had nothing, nothing but a white elephant building and hard to employ employees were going to try.

GLENN: I have to tell you that I never even considered the fact that you have, for 90 years, legacy now gone. That's it. My husband's been a dealer for years and he has credentials including the Time dealer of the year, Time magazine dealer of the year in Minnesota, and he was the runner up in the national contest. And he's been the president of every bank board and hospital board and church board. And, you know, I wish they would just come and visit us working at our dealership and the people we service. And they love coming. And we have a huge area of influence. I'm wondering if what they are going to do is they are going to take it away from us and give it to someone else and all our dealer franchise was now are negated. We have no rights.

CALLER: No.

CALLER: Nothing. They have taken everything away.

GLENN: So you have over $4 million worth of inventory.

CALLER: Right.

GLENN: If you didn't sign the gag order, which means that you're talking now, if you don't sign the gag order, you won't they are saying to you that you can't sell the cars. They're yours, right? You bought them from them.

CALLER: Uh huh.

GLENN: And you won't get any warranties on these cars.

CALLER: What will happen, as I understand it, it's very confusing. I'd have to ask a Chrysler dealer, I suppose, because they are in the middle of it. But I think what you have to do is you have to sell those cars to another dealer or something like that at a loss so that they can then retail the car and cover it with warranties. Once we're terminated, we can no longer do any warranty work, you see. So if we don't sign this thing and send it in, what happens is they will put us in the bankruptcy court and the judge has the authority to probably terminate us within a week, you know.

CALLER: But Glenn, here's the deal. They got a gun to their head because they have to sign this thing by Friday. Keep in mind that they filed an appeal which General Motors, by the way, never even informed them that they could file an appeal. They just happened to find out. They got that in by Monday night. Now you are telling me that of all the GM dealers who have been cut and all the ones that possibly are filing appeals that somebody was actually looking at those appeals on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday and giving them an answer back and by Friday they have to sign this agreement or they're dead.

CALLER: Well, and we don't even know to whom we are appealing. That's, we just said to the review committee we don't know if it's the government, we don't know if it's General Motors. We have absolutely no idea. And then at the end when you're all done, you have you're forced to give them your customer, all your customer base and your customer service base and then you have to say, well, that's good; now you've cut us. And if you want to put up someone else three miles from us, we have to agree to that. So it's

GLENN: This is unbelievable.

CALLER: It is unbelievable that they can do that to private enterprise.

GLENN: Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It was originally life, liberty and property.

CALLER: Right.

GLENN: I mean, the only thing they haven't done is taken your property.

CALLER: I know, but

GLENN: They have taken everything you've had of worth.

CALLER: Completely.

GLENN: They have made it worthless.

CALLER: Well, and you know the other night I had a dream about our employees. I know all of our employees and their families and, boy, you know, in this economy if we can't keep them on, what are they going to do?

GLENN: Lee, what are you going to do? You've been doing this forever. What are you

CALLER: We'll keep operating here and we have an excellent body shop.

GLENN: Selling what?

CALLER: Well, we'll sell used cars. We've always had a good used car operation. And we'll try to expand that and we'll also go, have to go look for other franchises, whatever that may be, if there's anything at all out there that would be possible, you know.

CALLER: You know what that's going to be, Glenn? That's going to be a foreign dealer. So as much as we're trying to promote patriotism and buying American here which I've done my whole life, now the answer ironically may be to have somebody like Volkswagen or Honda come in. I mean, how crazy is that?

CALLER: Well, and now all of our customers, if and when they get rid of us will be at least a 30 minute drive. And so for getting their services or even buying the car. What's going to happen is they are just really going to lose most of our Chevy buyers. That is basically what is going to happen unless, of course, they choose someone else and us and put them in a location very, very close. It's quite amazing when you read the documents. It's taken away every right you ever had. And think of these people who just may have purchased a dealership and paid big money for these franchises and now they have nothing. They're gone.

GLENN: Have you guys, have you thought about suing for any sort of restitution?

CALLER: You can't do that according to this agreement.

CALLER: That's why I said the gun's to your head, Glenn.

GLENN: Wait, wait, but if you done agree to the agreement.

CALLER: Well, if you don't agree to it and don't sign it, like I say, in a few weeks dealers in that position will be terminated immediately rather than given this time of six to eight, ten, twelve months to wind down your business.

GLENN: So what are you going to do? Are you going to sign that agreement or are you going to stand fast and roll the dice that at some point sanity prevails?

CALLER: Well, everybody we talk to, we were at a big meeting Monday with all these dealers that have had something happen to them and we don't know what. Nobody said anything at the meeting. But it was highly recommended by the attorneys that were there, it would be very foolish if you don't sign it. Because it's your only chance to hang on and see what happens down the road.

CALLER: Well, and if you sue, you have to pay all of General Motors' lawyer fees. That's in the contract. Whether you win or lose, you have to pay them. And our lawyer said they charge about $1500 an hour. I mean, you could be in the millions. So you could lose, which you probably would, against General Motors. You know, you can't really fight the factory.

GLENN: No, you are not even, you are not in the fight against General Motors anymore.

CALLER: No.

GLENN: You are in the fight against the unions, the government and General Motors.

CALLER: Yes.

GLENN: Big business, big labor and big government. This is, this is fascism. This is what happens when you merge special interests, corporations and the government. And you know what, guys? If people like you don't take a stand and I'm not suggesting that you, you know, don't sign or do sign. That's up to you. You've got a lot riding on it. But at some point you know what poem keeps going through my mind is, you know, first they came for the Jews. People, all of us are like, well, this news doesn't really affect me; well, I'm not a bondholder; well, I'm not in banking industry; well, I'm not a big CEO; I'm not on Wall Street; I'm not a car dealer; I'm not an autoworker. Gang, at some point they are going to come for you.

CALLER: They are. If they can do this, they can do anything.

CALLER: And you know what, Glenn, you know who is paying their $1500 an hour general legal fees for General Motors?

GLENN: We are.

CALLER: The taxpayer. The taxpayer is paying that and that's why people should care about all of this and they should also care because their taxes are going to go up when dealerships like my parents go under. Because how are the communities going to pay the tax revenue that Main Motors in Anoka, Minnesota was giving to the City.

CALLER: Yeah, that really is, that is completely true.

CALLER: It's just a big chain reaction that will have a tumbling effect, there's no question.

CALLER: Even the gas station across the street where we fill up all our cars is going to take a big hit. You are right, Glenn. People don't realize how important. And Lee and I were trying to figure out what plan General Motors has to be profitable. I mean, how many cars do they

GLENN: Here it is. Here's their plan. Their plan is the government is going to give $4500 rebates if you buy one of these cars. You buy a car, you get a you turn in your junker, you get $4500 to the next car. Let's play that out. That's a second GM bailout and then other side it is protectionism. Because now you have to protect this big American company, big American labor that your tax dollars are at stake. So you've got to protect it. The minute we go down the road of protectionism, look up Smoot Hawley, the minute we go down protectionism, it's over, game over. Because other countries will do the same thing and then you're in trouble. Then you've got then you're over in this global economy.

CALLER: Well, who's going to pay the $4500? It's going to be the taxpayers.

GLENN: The taxpayers. The taxpayers.

CALLER: It is. And it's going to be those people who are I mean, it's so crazy. And eventually I can tell you one thing. Our employees here at Main Motor have it figured out. They might not have had it figured out two or three weeks ago, but they hear the writing on the wall loud and clear. And I think the rest of the American public will figure it out, too. We hope so. We hope so.

GLENN: Okay. Lee, Karen, thank you so much. And Gretchen, you stay in touch with me and let me know what's going on, all right?

CALLER: Thank you very much for having us on.

CALLER: Thanks for your time.

GLENN: You bet.

CALLER: We really appreciate it and keep up your good work.

GLENN: Thanks a lot. We just love your daughter. She's great. Thanks a lot. Thanks, Gretchen.

CALLER: Bye bye.

Desperate as they are to discredit Supreme Court justice nominee Brett Kavanaugh, progressives have come up with a brilliant new angle for their attacks on President Donald Trump's candidate: his "frat boy"-sounding first name.

"We'll be DAMNED if we're going to let five MEN—including some frat boy named Brett—strip us of our hard-won bodily autonomy and reproductive rights," tweeted pro-choice organization NARAL.

“Now, I don't know much about Kavanaugh, but I'm skeptical because his name is Brett," said late night show comedian Stephen Colbert. “That sounds less like a Supreme Court justice and more like a waiter at a Ruby Tuesday's. 'Hey everybody, I'm Brett, I'll be your Supreme Court justice tonight. Before you sit down, let me just clear away these rights for you.'"

But as Glenn Beck noted on today's show, Steven Colbert actually changed the pronunciation of his name to sound French when he moved from South Carolina to Manhattan … perhaps to have that certain je ne sais quoi.

Watch the clip below to see Colbert attempt to explain.

Colbert's name games.

Desperate as they are to discredit Supreme Court justice nominee Brett Kavanaugh, progressives have come up with a brilliant new angle for their attacks on President Donald Trump's candidate: his "frat boy"-sounding first name.


This article provided courtesy of TheBlaze.

Before the President left for Europe this week, he issued a pardon to 76-year-old Dwight Hammond, and Hammond's 49-year-old son Steven. If those names sound familiar, you might remember them as the Oregon cattle ranchers who were sentenced to five years in prison for setting a fire that spread onto a portion of federal land in Oregon. In 2012, the jury acquitted the Hammonds on some, but not all of the charges against them, and they went to prison.

After serving a short term, the Hammonds were released, only to be sent back to prison in 2015 when the Obama administration filed an appeal, and a federal court ruled the Hammonds had been improperly sentenced.

RELATED: 3 Things to Learn From How the Government Mishandled the Bundy Standoff

It was the Hammonds being sent back to prison that sparked an even more famous standoff in Oregon. The perceived injustice to the Hammonds inspired the Bundy brothers, Ryan and Ammon, to storm onto the Malheur wildlife refuge in Oregon with other ranchers and militiamen, where they engaged in a 41-day armed standoff with federal agents.

The presidential pardon will take some time off the Hammonds' five-year sentences, though Steven has already served four years, and his father has served three. The White House statement about the pardons called their imprisonment "unjust" and the result of an "overzealous" effort by the Obama administration to prosecute them.

It drives the Left totally insane, but President Trump knows how to play to his base.

The pardon is the second major move President Trump has made since taking office to signal greater support of residents in Western states who desire to see more local control of federal lands. Last December, Trump signed the largest rollback of federal land protection in U.S. history when he significantly reduced the size of the Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante national monuments in Utah.

Critics say President Trump's actions will only encourage other fringe militia groups in the West to try more armed standoffs with the government. But have these critics considered Trump's actions might just have the opposite effect? Making citizens in the West feel like the government is actually listening to their grievances.

It drives the Left totally insane, but President Trump knows how to play to his base.

Artful Hypocrisy: The double standard is nauseating

Jamie McCarthy/Getty Images for Max Mara

All right. Prepare to jazz snap, because what you're about to hear is perfect for the nauseatingly pretentious applause of the progressive crowd.

For one, it centers around an artwork titled "untitled (flag 2)" by German artist Josephine Meckseper. Smeared with black paint and the engraving of a striped sock, which according to the artist "takes on a new symbolic meaning in light of the recent imprisonment of immigrant children at the border." The German-born artist adds: "Let's not forget that we all came from somewhere and are only recent occupants of this country – native cultures knew to take care of this continent much better for thousands of years before us. It's about time for our differences to unite us rather than divide us."

RELATED: The Miraculous Effect Disney's 'Snow White' Had on a Downtrodden America

It frowns out at the world like some childish, off-brand art project. Sponsored by the Creative Time Project, the art project is part of a larger series titled "Pledges of Allegiance," in which each artist designs a flag that "points to an issue the artist is passionate about, a cause they believe is worth fighting for, and speaks to how we might move forward collectively." Most of the other flags have clouds, blank canvas laziness, slogans like A horror film called western civilization and Don't worry be angry, as well as other heavy-handed imagery.

"The flag is a collage of an American flag and one of my dripped paintings which resembles the contours of the United States. I divided the shape of the country in two for the flag design to reflect a deeply polarized country in which a president has openly bragged about harassing women and is withdrawing from the Kyoto protocol and UN Human Rights Council."

As much as we may not like it, or agree with it, at least these artists are protesting peacefully.

As much as we may not like it, or agree with it, at least these artists are protesting peacefully. They are expressing their opinions with their right to free speech. We don't have to like it, or condone it, or even call it art, but we'd be shooting ourselves in the foot if we didn't at least respect their right to freedom of speech. I mean, they'll probably be the same people who throw a tantrum anytime someone orders a chicken sandwich from Chick-fil-A, but that's their problem, isn't it? We're the ones who get to enjoy a chicken sandwich.

There is one problem with the flag. It's being displayed at a public university. Imagine what would happen if a conservative art collective stained rainbow flags and called it an art project and raised it on a flag pole at a public university. Or if the University of Texas raised a rebel flag and called it art. And there's the key. If conservatives and libertarians want to be political on campus, do it under the guise of art. That'll really steam the preachy bullies up.

Last Monday night, President Donald Trump announced Brett Kavanaugh to replace Justice Anthony Kennedy on the Supreme Court. Over the coming weeks, we will get to witness a circus with politicians and the media competing with each other to see who can say the most outrageous thing about the candidate nominated and highlight who they would have nominated. We will then witness the main event – the hearings in the Senate where Kavanaugh will be asked questions with an agenda and a bias. Below are 6 things he (or any future nominee) should say, but will he?

Ideology

The folks in media on BOTH sides are looking for a nominee who shares their ideology. Our friends on the left want a nominee who is liberal and many of our friends on the right want a nominee who is a conservative. As the next Justice of the Supreme Court, I state clearly that while I have my own personal ideology and belief system, I will leave it at the door of the Supreme Court when I am working.

The idea of a Justice having and ruling with an ideology is wrong and not part of the job description – my job is to review cases, listen to all arguments and base my sole decision on whether the case is constitutional or not. My own opinions are irrelevant and at times may involve me ruling against my personal opinion.

Loyalty

Loyalty is a big word in politics and politicians love to demand it from people they help and nominate. As the next Justice, I should state I have no loyalty to any party, any ideology, or to any President; even to President Trump who nominated me. MY loyalty only belongs in one place – that is in the Constitution and in the oath I will take on a successful appointment; which in part reads, "

I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same.

Loyalty to anything but the Constitution is going against the wishes of America's founders and not part of my job description.

Loyalty to anything but the Constitution is going against the wishes of America's founders and not part of my job description.

Role of Government

During any confirmation hearing, you will hear questions from politicians who will bring up cases and prior rulings to gauge what side of the issue they share and to see how they rule. Would Kavanaugh show the courage to highlight the Constitution and remind those in the hearing that he won't always rule on their side, but he will enforce the Constitution that is violated on a daily basis by Congress? He should use the opportunity of a hearing to remind this and future governments that the Constitution calls for three co-equal branches of government and they all have very different roles on responsibilities.

The Constitution is very clear when it comes to the role of Congress – there are 18 clauses under Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution which grants certain powers to the legislature and everything else is to be left to the states. If Congress passes a law that is not covered under those 18 clauses, would he vote against it and define it as unconstitutional? Likewise, the Constitution is very clear when it comes to the role of the Presidency. The role of the President has grown un-Constitutionally since President John Adams and 1797 Alien & Sedition Act. If any President acts outside the clear boundaries of Article 2, or decides to pass laws and act without Congress, would he vote against it and define it as unconstitutional?

Damaged Constitution

Will Kavanaugh point out one of the worst rulings of the Court - the ruling of Marbury v Madison in 1803? This increased the power of the Court and started the path of making the Court the sole arbiter and definer of what is and is not constitutional. We saw this with President Bush when he said (around 2006/2007) that we should just let the Supreme Court decide if a bill was Constitutional or not.

This is not the government America's founders had in mind.

Every two, four, and six years, new and returning members of Congress take an oath of office to preserve, defend, and protect the Constitution of the United States. Every member of Congress, the President, and the nine justices on the Supreme Court hold a duty and responsibility to decide on whether a bill is Constitutional or not.

America's founders were very clear about having three co-equal branches of government.

America's founders were very clear about having three co-equal branches of government. It's time members of Congress and the President start to take their oaths more seriously and the people demand they do.

It is wrong for someone to abdicate their responsibility but it also puts Americans in danger of tyranny as the Supreme Court has gotten many decisions wrong including the cases of Dred Scott, Korematsu and Plessy v Ferguson.

Decision Making

If you have ever listened to any argument before the Supreme Court, or even read some of the decisions, you will notice two common threads. You will notice the Constitution is rarely mentioned or discussed but what we call precedent or prior case law is discussed the most.

Will Kavanaugh clearly state that while he will listen to any and all arguments made before him and that he will read all the rulings in prior cases, they will only play a very small part in his rulings? If a law violates the constitution, should it matter how many justices ruled on it previously, what precedent that case set, or even what their arguments were? Would he publicly dismiss this and state their decisions will be based largely on the actual Constitution and the intent behind our founder's words?

Role of SCOTUS

Lastly, will Kavanaugh state that there will be times when they have to make a ruling which they personally disagree with or that will potentially hurt people? Despite modern thinking from people like Chief Justice Roberts, it is not the job of a Supreme Court Justice to write laws.

The sole job is to examine laws and pass judgment on their Constitutionality. A law can be passed in Congress and can have the best and most noble intentions, but those feelings and intent are irrelevant if it violates the Constitution.

Conclusion

When you watch the media over the coming weeks, how many of these points do you think will be debated on either side? When you watch the confirmation hearings, do you think Brett Kavanaugh will make any of these points?

Lastly, put yourself in the Oval Office. If you knew someone would make these points, would you nominate them? Would your friends and family?