Glenn Beck: TSA pat downs a violation of the Fourth Amendment?




Freedom Watch with Judge Andrew Napolitano, weeknights 8:00 p.m. on the Fox Business Network


GLENN: Judge Andrew Napolitano, weeknights 8:00 p.m. on the Fox Business Network. This is really turning into a great little network, it is. I mean, it is ‑‑ it's very, dare I say libertarian and free‑thinking at night and fantastic. Judge?

JUDGE NAPOLITANO: You and I end up pushing the envelope, Glenn, to demonstrate to these people, many of whom also work with us on the Fox News Channel.

GLENN: Yeah.

JUDGE NAPOLITANO: The virtues of the free market, which are incomparable to anything that the mind of man has created.

GLENN: I know. I mean, anyway. Judge, tell me about, if ‑‑ my wife and I had this discussion last night because she's going to fly commercially here in a couple of days.

JUDGE NAPOLITANO: Right.

GLENN: And she ‑‑

JUDGE NAPOLITANO: She can't go through that machine because of who her husband is.

GLENN: Because you don't believe, nor do I, that those images would be deleted?

JUDGE NAPOLITANO: Absolutely not. We have a history of over a hundred of them being passed around the federal courthouse in Baltimore. Now, the federal courthouse is ten miles from the airport in Baltimore. Question: What were they doing in the courthouse? Well, somebody in the TSA sent some to a federal marshal via computer in the courthouse and they started passing them around. They may not have known who the people were, but we know that the government can't be trusted. You and I have written books and given dozens of speeches on government lying. It's well documented. It need not be recounted here. But the recent examples of the abuse of privacy show us that the government cannot be trusted with pictures of our private parts. And you are a target of people in the government because you have exposed them for what they are and they cannot be trusted with private information about Glenn Beck. That's given.

GLENN: I have news for you. I wouldn't allow my daughters, even if I was Joe Schmoe, I wouldn't let my daughters or I won't want my wife walking through it. I mean, I don't want my ‑‑ I don't want pictures of my daughters.

JUDGE NAPOLITANO: Right.

GLENN: Or quite frankly my 5‑year‑old son. No.

JUDGE NAPOLITANO: I agree with you. And this is why if I have to travel ‑‑ I'm not traveling this weekend. I'm already out at my farm and I'm able fortunately to drive there from the city. I would opt for the pat‑down and I would do a number of things. I've advised people on Freedom Watch, my show, and on your show when we talked about this the other day on the Glenn Beck program.

GLENN: So what do you do? What do you do?

JUDGE NAPOLITANO: Well, you resist within the limits of the law. You ask for the name, rank and serial number of everybody that touches you. You remember that the camera is the new gun. You take a picture of them before and after your cellphone goes through the x‑ray scanner. You protest loudly not to the point where they can't get their work done but you say to others there things like, is this America? Is this a free society? I buy a ticket on a private airline for a private flight. Suddenly a government agent is feeling me up. You embarrass, you humiliate, and you tell them, "You know, guys, the laws are about to change. The reason I'm asking for your name, rank and serial number is because you will soon be a defendant in a civil case and maybe even in a criminal case at this stage."

GLENN: Okay. Hang on just a second, Judge.

JUDGE NAPOLITANO: Sure.

GLENN: Because I believe this is a ploy to sweep the TSA into the labor unions because they are all going to feel like they need somebody to protect them from the evil public. This is ‑‑ what you're suggesting I believe works exactly into the hands of the labor unions, which are already, they ‑‑ yesterday they ran a full ‑‑ I'm sorry, half‑page ad, AFL‑CIO defending the TSA and saying, "We're on your side, TSA."

JUDGE NAPOLITANO: Well, you know, Cousin Janet who, of course, is no relation to me. I use that phrase just to taunt her to come on my show. I've even invited her over to my Thanksgiving dinner, although my mother would have a heart attack if she showed up. But anyway, Cousin Janet said very simply that we may need to deploy TSA agents elsewhere in society. Could you imagine if they do this to us when we get on a train, when we get on a bus ‑‑

GLENN: Well, they're saying ‑‑

JUDGE NAPOLITANO: ‑‑ when you walk into the Fox building? Where will this end?

GLENN: They are saying that they are putting it in the trains now. That was the news I saw, what, about 10 minutes ago, Pat? That they are now going to put these things into ‑‑

PAT: Trains and metro.

JUDGE NAPOLITANO: I know that provocations will lead to a stiffening of the government's back but it will also need to a realization that we cannot become a nation of sheep. It may also lead to this: I suspect a lot of those TSA agents hate doing this as much as we ‑‑

GLENN: Oh, I do, too.

JUDGE NAPOLITANO: ‑‑ hate having them do it.

PAT: You know they do.

GLENN: I agree with you. I agree with you on that and that's why, that's why I disagree with you on the humiliate. I think inform them and be kind, be gentle, be as Gandhi‑like or as Christ‑like as you can but inform them that things are going to change, guys, and you don't want to do this.

JUDGE NAPOLITANO: Well, I had that great libertarian singer Trace Adkins on my show.

GLENN: Yeah.

JUDGE NAPOLITANO: And I asked him what he was going to do. He, of course, is going to suggest that he enjoys what they are doing and he welcomes more hands on his body. Now, you know him. He's about 6' 8," about 300 pounds.

GLENN: I know.

PAT: Yeah. That would be funny from Trace Adkins.

GLENN: I know.

PAT: That would be effective.

GLENN: It's pretty amazing. It's pretty amazing. Judge, God bless you, man, and keep it up. Would you do me a favor?

JUDGE NAPOLITANO: Sure.

GLENN: Go to TheBlaze.com today and look at the stories, what are they, Pat? There's three of them on revolutionaries and communists talking about, there's the animal liberation people that are sending bloody used razor blades to people and they're saying it's time for a revolution. You have the communists ‑‑

PAT: And socialists preparing for violence and revolution.

GLENN: Yeah, and calling for it now. All of the things, Judge, that we have talked about. And I would just like you to see these videos because you're a guy who really gets it.

JUDGE NAPOLITANO: I will. I will.

GLENN: And I'd love to, I'd love to hear your advice on ‑‑

JUDGE NAPOLITANO: Gold and guns.

GLENN: Judge ‑‑

JUDGE NAPOLITANO: And God, but he's always with us.

GLENN: I love you. Thank you so much.

JUDGE NAPOLITANO: Love you, too. Happy Thanksgiving.

Same to you, Pat.

GLENN: You, too. Bye‑bye. 

The FEC is bad. The House of Representatives isn't doing anything to make it better.

When it passed H.R. 1 by a vote of 234-193 on Monday, Congress attempted to address a laundry list of nationwide problems: rampant gerrymandering, voting rights, and the vulnerability of elections to foreign interference, among other concerns. But H.R. 1, billed as the "For the People Act," also takes a shot at reforming the Federal Election Commission (FEC). It fails.

The FEC isn't good at enforcing the nation's campaign finance laws, and, when it is does, it's often an entire election cycle after the given offense. As it is, candidates don't have much difficulty circumventing campaign finance laws, undermining the fairness of elections and opening the door to further corruption.

RELATED: Lawmakers are putting the death penalty on trial

The FEC was created by the Federal Election Campaign Act following the Watergate scandal, as Congress sought a better way to police federal campaign laws and prevent future presidents from interfering with investigations as Nixon had. The FEC has six commissioners, and no more than three can be of the same party. Four votes are required for most actions taken by the agency, and that hasn't been an issue for most of its history. But since 2008, the frequency of 3-3 tie votes has increased dramatically. It's why the FEC is slow to investigate cases and even slower to prosecute offenses. Supporters of H.R. 1 complain, with good reason, that the FEC has become toothless. But H.R. 1's reforms introduce new and potentially volatile problems.

FEC's rampant dysfunction won't be fixed by H.R. 1— the bill doesn't get at what actually went wrong. Since its inception, the FEC has been able to operate without excessive gridlock, and, for the most part, it still does. At the height of FEC turmoil in 2014, the FEC only had a tied vote 14 percent of the time (historically, it has been closer to one to four percent of the time) on substantive matters, although many of these tie votes occur on matters that are particularly contentious. The greater problem afflicting the FEC is touched upon by NBC Washington's findings that the Republican and Democratic commissioners of the FEC almost always vote as blocs. At various times, both Republican and Democratic commissioners have put party interests ahead of their agency's responsibilities.

At various times, both Republican and Democratic commissioners have put party interests ahead of their agency's responsibilities.

H.R. 1's Democratic supporters instead believe the FEC's six-commissioner structure makes it dysfunctional. H.R. 1 introduces a new system of five commissioners —two from each party and one independent, eliminating tie votes. But that independent commissioner's de facto role as a tiebreaker would grant them far too much power. Save for Senate approval, there's nothing preventing a president from appointing an "independent" like Bernie Sanders or Angus King.

The bill's proponents are aware of this problem, creating a Blue Ribbon Advisory Panel that will help inform the president's decisions. But this panel has problems of its own. The Blue Ribbon Advisory Panel's decisions are non-binding and not public, a result of its exemption from the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), which ensures the transparency of advisory committees. There are arguments against FACA's necessity, the panel's deliberate exemption from the law undermines the idea that its goal is to ensure non-partisanship. Instead, H.R. 1 will allow future presidents to tilt the scales of the FEC in their favor, a fate the post-Watergate creators of the FEC were so desperate to avoid they originally had members of Congress picking commissioners before the Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional. Apparently, the solution to excessive gridlock is one-party control.

H.R. 1 also seeks to grant unilateral powers to the Chair of the commission in the name of expediency, again giving leverage to the Chair's party, and allows the General Counsel to take actions independent of commission votes. While some of the FEC's problems, such as its notoriously slow pace and the delayed appointment of commissioners under Presidents Obama and Trump, might be solved with legislation, the consolidation of power in the hands of a few at the expense of the FEC's integrity is not a winning strategy.

The FEC is afflicted by the same problem that has afflicted governments for as long as they have existed – governments are made up of people, and people can be bad. The Founders, in their wisdom, sought to limit the harm bad actors could do once in power, and the FEC's current structure adheres to this principle. Currently, the consequences of bad actors in the FEC is dysfunction and frustration. But under H.R. 1's reforms, those consequences could be blatant corruption.

Michael Rieger is a contributor for Young Voices. Follow him on Twitter at @EagerRieger.

On Monday's radio program, Glenn Beck and Stu Burguiere discussed former Starbucks CEO and progressive Howard Schultz, a lifelong Democrat who has not only been disowned by the Democrat Party but he can no longer set foot inside of a Starbucks store because of his success in business.

In this clip, Stu explained how at one time Starbucks only sold coffee in bags until Schultz, an employee at the time, convinced the company to open a Starbucks cafe.

Click here to watch the full episode.

At one point, the owners came close to closing down the cafe, but Schultz eventually managed to purchase the company and transform it into the empire that it is today.

Stu continued, describing how Schultz, a lifelong Democrat, went on to implement liberal corporate policies that earned the company a reputation for being a "beacon" of liberalism across the country.

"And now he (Schultz) can't even get into the Democrat Party," Stu said."That is craziness," Glenn replied.

Citing a "60 Minutes" interview, Glenn highlighted the journey that Schultz traveled, which started in the New York City projects and evolved, later becoming the CEO of a coffee empire.

"This guy is so American, so everything in business that we want to be, he has taken his beliefs and made it into who he is which is very liberal," Glenn explained.

Catch more of the conversation in the video below.


This article provided courtesy of TheBlaze.

This weekend, March 17, Rep. Rashida Tlaib will be speaking at (Council on American Islamic Relations) CAIR-Michigan's 19th annual "Faith-Led, Justice Driven" banquet.

Who knows what to expect. But here are some excerpts from a speech she gave last month, at CAIR-Chicago's 15th annual banquet.

RELATED: CLOSER LOOK: Who is Rep. Ilhan Omar?

You know the speech is going to be good when it begins like this:


CAIR-Chicago 15th Annual Banquet: Rashida Tlaib youtu.be


It's important to remember CAIR's ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. Think of CAIR as a spinoff of HAMAS, who its two founders originally worked for via a Hamas offshoot organization (the Islamic Association for Palestine (IAP)).

A 2009 article in Politico says feds "designated CAIR a co-conspirator with the Holy Land Foundation, a group that was eventually convicted for financing terrorism."

The United Arab Emirates has designated CAIR a terrorist organization.

In 1993, CAIR spokesman Ibrahim Hooper told a reporter for the Minneapolis Star Tribune:

I wouldn't want to create the impression that I wouldn't like the government of the United States to be Islamic sometime in the future.

In 1998, CAIR co-founder Omar Ahmad said:

Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Koran … should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth.

Notice the slight underhanded jab at Israel. It's just one of many in her speech, and is indicative of the growing anti-Semitism among Democrats, especially Tlaib and Omar.

Most of the speech, as you might expect, is a long rant about the evil Donald Trump.

I wonder if she realizes that the Birth of Jesus pre-dates her religion, and her "country." The earliest founding of Palestine is 1988, so maybe she's a little confused.

Then there's this heartwarming story about advice she received from Congressman John Dingell:

When I was a state legislator, I came in to serve on a panel with him on immigration rights, and Congressman Dingell was sitting there and he had his cane, if you knew him, he always had this cane and he held it in front of him. And I was so tired, I had driven an hour and a half to the panel discussion at the University of Michigan Ann Arbor campus. And I sit down, my hair is all messed up, and I said, 'Oh, my God, I'm so tired of this. I don't know how you've been doing it so long Congressman. They all lie.' And he looks at me and he goes. (She nods yes.) I said, 'You know who I'm talking about, these lobbyists, these special interest [groups], they're all lying to me.' … And he looks at me, and he goes, 'Young lady, there's a saying in India that if you stand still enough on a riverbank, you will watch your enemies float by dead.'

What the hell does that mean? That she wants to see her enemies dead? Who are her enemies? And how does that relate to her opening statement? How does it relate to the "oppression" her family faced at the hand of Israel?

Glenn Beck on Wednesday called out Reps. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) and Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) for their blatantly anti-Semitic rhetoric, which has largely been excused by Democratic leadership. He noted the sharp contrast between the progressive principles the freshmen congresswomen claim to uphold and the anti-LGBTQ, anti-feminist, anti-Israel groups they align themselves with.

Later this month, both congresswomen are scheduled to speak at fundraisers for the Council on American-Islamic Relations, a pro-Palestinian organization with ties to Islamic terror groups including Hamas, Hezbollah, al-Qaeda, and the Islamic State.

Rep. Tlaib will be speaking at CAIR-Michigan's 19th Annual Banquet on March 17 in Livonia, Michigan, alongside keynote speaker Omar Suleiman, a self-described student of Malcolm X with links to the Muslim Brotherhood. Suleiman has regularly espoused notably "un-progressive" ideas, such as "honor killings" for allegedly promiscuous women, mandatory Hijabs for women, death as a punishment for homosexuality, and men having the right to "sex slaves," Glenn explained.

Rep. Omar is the keynote speaker at a CAIR event on March 23 in Los Angeles and will be joined by Hassan Shibly, who claims Hezbollah and Hamas are not terrorist organizations, and Hussam Ayloush, who is known for referring to U.S. armed forces as radical terrorists.

Watch the clip below for more:


This article provided courtesy of TheBlaze.