Glenn Beck: Cash for Clunkers update

The Obama National Anthem...

GLENN: There's a couple of stories that I want to give you, first of all, the CARS system, the cars.gov, this is a website where you can find out all about cash for clunkers, and we're going to give you more on this tonight. But I'm sick and tired of these bloggers who will deny the facts on what's going on. We broke a story on Friday that if anyone in the media were doing their job, they would be after this story. They would be going on this story and saying, "What is the deal" on this. But they are leaving it up to us on Fox News and the blogs.

Here's what the story is. If you are the administrator, you know, in your company, let's say you're, you know, Bill's Car Lot and you are the guy who is processing all of the cash for clunkers thing. You get on your computer and you type in all of the information, you go onto the website, you click on something and it comes up and it says, warning, you are entering a secure site. Okay? You've seen that warning before. You go to input more information about who's going to buy this car and this warning comes up on the screen: This application provides access to the DOT CARS system. When logged onto the CARS system, your computer is considered a federal computer system and it is property of the United States government.

Now, you want to talk about eminent domain, what the heck is ‑‑ wait a minute. Wasn't this just my computer? Just by logging on, your computer becomes property of the United States government. Now, we started calling the United States government and asking them, could you please give us a reason why ‑‑ I mean, this thing gets much, much worse than this ‑‑ but why this disclaimer is there? Why are you doing this? We have yet to receive a response.

Any or all uses of this system, any or all uses of this system and all files on this system may be intercepted, monitored, recorded, copied, audited, inspected, and disclosed to authorized CARS, DOT, and law enforcement personnel as well as all authorized officials of other agencies, both domestic and foreign. By using this system, the user consents to such interception, monitoring, recording, copying, auditing, inspecting and disclosure at the discretion of CARS or the DOT personnel.

Why in God's name would you put "I accept"? Now, we've talked to four attorneys and all four attorneys have said, their exact quote was, dear God in heaven, or something like that. Why would you give the federal government this kind of power? Why would the federal government need this sort of power?

Now, they're going to make the case, I assume ‑‑ again they don't respond to us. I would assume that they are going to make the case that, "Well, we just wanted to make sure that nothing nefarious is going on at these car dealerships because there's an awful lot of money going into these car dealerships for tax dollars." Okay. That's cool. I appreciate your protection. You're doing such a fine job in monitoring our tax dollars there on the computers that you already own in Washington. But wouldn't that ‑‑ don't you already have this power? If you think something is going on, don't you have the power? I believe it's called a subpoena. What you're doing here, what the federal government is doing is a fishing expedition.

Now, these blogs have come out this weekend and said, "Oh, there goes Glenn Beck trying to stir up trouble again. It doesn't affect the average person. It's just the car dealerships." I'm sorry. I'm sorry. It's just the car dealerships. Oh, so then I shouldn't care? It's not the average people? It's just the average people who are in small business running the car dealerships.

Now, it's very interesting to look at the language. I'm not an attorney, but I never play one on the air. But let me ask you this: Why does the federal government now consider these computers a part of the federal computer system, a part of the federal computer system? It can be ‑‑ all files on this computer system may be intercepted. What does that mean? That means anything coming into the computer. Any kind of e‑mail can be intercepted, monitored. You're on ‑‑ if this car dealership happens to use Skype, they can now monitor that Skype conversation. Wouldn't that be something that you also need a subpoena for or something to clear for eavesdropping?

STU: Not if you agree to it.

GLENN: Exactly right.

PAT: Are these not the same people that were so concerned about, "the wiretapping, the warrantless wiretapping, George Bush is listening to our conversations."

GLENN: This is an actual case ‑‑

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: ‑‑ of they can listen to your conversations. If they use Skype on that computer and call you. Now, I don't know how regular that is, but it is certainly something that we should never say, "Oh, well, it's no big deal."

Now, the other question that has been raised by attorneys to me is the federal computer system. By using this system, the user consents to these things, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. So if you're part of the system, well, where is the end of your system? So in other words, we know that the feds say you're part of the computer system of the federal government. Well, that would imply that it is a giant octopus. That would imply that it has tentacles everywhere. It's not just that one computer that is at CARS or DOT. It's not just that one computer. That one computer is connected to the federal government system. So your computer now becomes part of that system. But what about the system that your computer is connected to? Is that system considered it? Or is it just this one computer? So in other words, if I go on and I am sharing files with someone, is that computer that I reach out to and share files with, is that also now part of the system? Can they follow that file into someone else's system? Don't know. It's written in such a broad form that, yes, you could interpret it that way. Are they going to do that? I don't know. But why would ‑‑ they want to audit you? They want to inspect, copy, record, monitor, intercept? I know it's just the car dealers, but aren't your records ‑‑ have you not bought a car at a car dealership? Have you ever done that? I know I have. I've never bought at a candy store. So do they now have records of everything that I have done? Do they ‑‑ how long is the cash for clunkers? I have heard ‑‑ and I don't know if this is true. This sounds so unreasonable that I can't believe it's true. They say the cash for clunkers form is like 30 pages long.

STU: The instructions are 136 pages.

GLENN: No, no, no. If you come in and turn your car in, it's like 30 pages of questions.

STU: So you just have to fill out 30 pages, then add on 136 pages of instructions.

GLENN: I don't know if that's true. But if that's true, what kind of questions ‑‑ has anybody turned their car in for clunker, as a clunker? Because I'd like to hear from you. What kind of questions are they asking? And is your information now, when you go to the dealership, if you go buy a car from them, because their computers are now considered federal government property, anything that they ‑‑ any transaction that you do with them, is that now, does that open you up at all? This is insane.

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.