Glenn Beck: Big Brother and GPS


Glenn Beck is seen here on the Insider Webcam, an exclusive feature available only to Glenn Beck Insiders. Learn more...

GLENN: And then we have this story, which I find absolutely incredible. How would you feel if I said the police can put a GPS device on your car and track you anywhere you go? They could legally let me go a step further. You're not even a suspect in anything. They just said, "You know what, I want to watch where Stu is going," and they just put a GPS tracking device on your car and can track you anywhere.

STU: And I'm not suspected of anything.

GLENN: You are not nope.

STU: So how did they get the warrant?

GLENN: They don't need a warrant. I mean, I'm living in fantasy land. They don't even need a warrant. They just do it.

STU: It seems like fantasy land.

GLENN: Right, right. Here's the story out of the Chicago Tribune today. Wisconsin court upholds GPS tracking by police. Wisconsin police, from Madison, Wisconsin, Wisconsin police can attach GPS to cars to secretly track anyone's movements without obtaining a search warrant. This according to appeals court in Madison, Mississippi. However, the District 4 court of appeals said it was more than a little troubled by that conclusion and asked Wisconsin lawmakers to regulate GPS use to protect it against abuse by police and private, and private individuals. As the law currently stands, the Court said police can mount GPS on cars to track people without violating their constitutional rights, even if the drivers aren't suspects. Officers do not need to get warrants beforehand because GPS tracking does not involve a search or a seizure.

STU: Well, hold on. Let me try this opinion out for the first time on national radio as I just thought about it 13 seconds ago, okay?

GLENN: Go ahead.

STU: Isn't this what we want from judges? They are not being activists. They are not they are analyzing the law, they are saying what it says and then they are saying you should change it because it's a bad idea.

GLENN: It's Madison, Wisconsin!

STU: Right, but isn't that

GLENN: Yes, you are exactly right, but do you think Madison, Wisconsin's going to do that?

STU: But they can't if they're analyzing the law

GLENN: Nope, I got it. I got it.

STU: We're not saying they did analyze the law correctly. I'm assuming that part of it. But if they did analyze the law correctly, that is their job as a judge. This is what we complain of.

GLENN: That is their job, yes, not to regulate from the bench.

STU: Right. So hopefully maybe we can celebrate the fact that the cop knows where to go at all times.

GLENN: Now we need the second part. For instance, if this were happening in Texas, I know that the Texas legislature would go, "What!" And they would fix that.

STU: Right. They will pass a law.

GLENN: But here's where it gets "Feel good." Stu, Lisa's being talked by an old boyfriend.

STU: She is?

GLENN: Yes.

STU: That's terrible.

GLENN: I know. She's been stalked. And the guy is everywhere she goes. She'll go out to her car and he'll be there in his car just waiting for her, hassling her, saying awful things to her. She's already filed a restraining order. She's called the police. The police can't do anything, unless they catch him. And they can't catch him.

STU: Because he is not doing anything that's apparently illegal.

GLENN: No, he's hassling her, she's put a restraining order and she can't prove that he's there. He says he's not even in town. Can't the police do something? You know what would be great? Is if the police could go to his house and as long as his car's parked out front, if it's in the garage, it's a different story. But as long as the police can come and just put a tracking device on his vehicle, they would be able to prove it. They would use that in court and he would go to jail. That's exactly why they did it. And it's exactly why it's gone to court.

STU: As bad as it is, though, it's not as bad as the private part which is that the stalker can go put it on the car and they can't do anything about it.

On the radio program Thursday, Glenn Beck sat down with chief researcher Jason Buttrill to go over two bombshell developments that have recently come to light regarding former Vice President Joe Biden's role in the 2016 dismissal of Ukrainian Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin.

"Wow! Two huge stories dropped within about 24 hours of each other," Jason began. He went on to explain that a court ruling in Ukraine has just prompted an "actual criminal investigation against Joe Biden in Ukraine."

This stunning development coincided with the release of leaked phone conversations, which took place in late 2015 and early 2016, allegedly among then-Vice President Biden, Secretary of State John Kerry, and Ukraine's former President Petro Poroshenko.

One of the audiotapes seems to confirm allegations of a quid pro quo between Biden and Poroshenko, with the later admitting that he asked Shokin to resign despite having no evidence of him "doing anything wrong" in exchange for a $1 billion loan guarantee.

"Poroshenko said, 'despite the fact that we didn't have any corruption charges on [Shokin], and we don't have any information about him doing something wrong, I asked him to resign,'" Jason explained. "But none of the Western media is pointing this out."

Watch the video below for more details:


Listen to the released audiotapes in full here.

Use code GLENN to save $10 on one year of BlazeTV.

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn's masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multiplatform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution and live the American dream.

A recently declassified email, written by former National Security Adviser Susan Rice and sent herself on the day of President Donald Trump's inauguration, reveals the players involved in the origins of the Trump-Russia probe and "unmasking" of then-incoming National Security Adviser, Gen. Michael Flynn.

Rice's email details a meeting in the Oval Office on Jan 5, 2017, which included herself, former FBI Director James Comey, former Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates, former Vice President Joe Biden, and former President Barack Obama. Acting Director of National Intelligence, Richard Grenell, fully declassified the email recently amid President Trump's repeated references to "Obamagate" and claims that Obama "used his last weeks in office to target incoming officials and sabotage the new administration."

On Glenn Beck's Wednesday night special, Glenn broke down the details of Rice's email and discussed what they reveal about the Obama administration officials involved in the Russia investigation's origins.

Watch the video clip below:

Fellow BlazeTV host, Mark Levin, joined Glenn Beck on his exclusive Friday episode of "GlennTV" to discuss why the declassified list of Obama administration officials who were aware of the details of Gen. Michael Flynn's wiretapped phone calls are so significant.

Glenn argued that Obama built a covert bureaucracy to "transform America" for a long time to come, and Gen. Flynn was targeted because he happened to know "where the bodies were buried", making him a threat to Obama's "secret legacy."

Levin agreed, noting the "shocking extent of the police state tactics" by the Obama administration. He recalled several scandalous happenings during Obama's "scandal free presidency," which nobody seems to remember.

Watch the video below for more:


Use code GLENN to save $10 on one year of BlazeTV.

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn's masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution and live the American dream.

Colleges and universities should be home to a lively and open debate about questions both current and timeless, independent from a political bias or rules that stifle speech. Unfortunately for students, speaking out about personal beliefs or challenging political dogma can be a dangerous undertaking. I experienced this firsthand as an undergraduate, and I'm fighting that trend now as an adjunct professor.

In 2013, Glenn Beck was one of the most listened to radio personalities in the world. For a college senior with hopes of working on policy and media, a job working for Glenn was a ticket to big things. I needed a foot in the door and hoped to tap into the alumni network at the small liberal arts school where I was an undergrad. When I met with a career services specialist in early March 2013 about possible alumni connections to Glenn Beck, she disdainfully told me: "Why would you want to work for someone like him?" That was the beginning and end of our conversation.

I was floored by her response, and sent an email to the school complaining that her behavior was inappropriate. Her personal opinions, political or otherwise, I argued, shouldn't play a role in the decision to help students.

That isn't the kind of response a student should hear when seeking guidance and help in kick starting their career. Regardless of the position, a career specialist or professors' opinion or belief shouldn't be a factor in whether the student deserves access to the alumni network and schools' resources.

Now, seven years later, I work full time for a law firm and part time as an adjunct teaching business to undergraduate students. The culture at colleges and universities seems to have gotten even worse, unfortunately, since I was an undergrad.

College is a time to explore, dream big and challenge assumptions.

I never want to see a student told they shouldn't pursue their goals, regardless of their personal or political beliefs. College is a time to explore, dream big and challenge assumptions. I never got access to the alumni network or schools' resources from the career services office.

Lucky for students in 2020, there are several legal organizations that help students protect their rights when an issue goes beyond what can be handled by an undergraduate facing tremendous pressure from a powerful academic institution. Organizations like Speech First and the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), for instance, are resources I wish I knew about at the time.

When I experienced mistreatment from my college, I spoke up and challenged the behavior by emailing the administration and explaining what happened. I received a letter from the career services specialist apologizing for the "unprofessional comment."

What she described in that apology as a "momentary lapse of good judgement" was anything but momentary. It was indicative of the larger battle for ideas that has been happening on college campuses across the country. In the past seven years, the pressure, mistreatment and oppression of free expression have only increased. Even right now, some are raising concerns that campus administrations are using the COVID-19 pandemic to limit free speech even further. Social distancing guidelines and crowd size may both be used to limit or refuse controversial speakers.

Students often feel pressure to conform to a college or university's wishes. If they don't, they could be expelled, fail a class or experience other retribution. The college holds all the cards. On most campuses, the burden of proof for guilt in student conduct hearings is "more likely than not," making it very difficult for students to stand up for their rights without legal help.

As an adjunct professor, every student who comes to me for help in finding purpose gets my full support and my active help — even if the students' goals run counter to mine. But I have learned something crucial in my time in this role: It's not the job of an educator to dictate a student's purpose in life. I'm meant to help them achieve their dreams, no matter what.

Conner Drigotas is the Director of Communications and Development at a national law firm and is a Young Voices contributor.