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 Basis of Sex. I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that you probably didn't expect those five words to come out of me this morning. No, that's not my version of a clickbait headline to get you to pay attention — although that probably just happened — but this is the title to the new movie based on the life of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

RELATED: Here's the Problem With the New Ruth Bader Ginsburg Documentary

Progressives and liberals have been hovering over YouTube like a pack of rabid wolves, anxiously awaiting the first trailer to drop. And — three days — they got their wish. Something in the last few seconds caught my ear. Watch:

Now my first thought after hearing that went something like this: The word "freedom" is literally the fifth frigging word in the first sentence of the First Amendment. It shows up for the second time just two sentences later. How do you screw that up? I always assumed that liberal Hollywood movie makers had never really read the Constitution, but this is just sad.

But my second thought was that maybe they don't consider the Bill of Rights actually part of the Constitution. However, according to the National Constitution Center, the Bill of Rights officially became part of the Constitution — not a separate document — when it was ratified in 1791. This is rather easy to fact check, so there's really no excuse here.

But then I had another thought. Either liberal Hollywood forgot that the Constitution changed in 1791, or they actually prefer the vaguer pre-1791 version of the Constitution where God-given rights can be excluded if the state so pleases. Think about it. The Bill of Rights is the single greatest roadblock to the radical Left's "progress." Do you hate the fact that private gun ownership encourages self reliance and personal freedom? Do you also hate the fact that dissenting views, opinions and speech can't be silenced and crushed? Then the Bill of Rights is a clear and present danger to your agenda. It's enemy number one.

The new Left that is radically moving toward the extreme absolutely abhors the year 1791.

You see, the new Left that is radically moving further toward the extreme absolutely abhors the year 1791. They wish it never happened. The Bill of Rights is a constant reminder that some FREEDOMS can't be given by the government, they're granted by GOD. And that thought — you being aware of that — scares the hell out of them.

Now, it's possible I thought too much into this. It's also possible the screen writer made a simple mistake and thought Ruth Bader Ginsburg was actually born before 1791, figuring it would be a nice tip of the hat to her longevity. I can actually see how you could make that mistake. But it's also possible that this is a sign of the times we live in.

The Bill of Rights is under attack, maybe more now than ever. It's never been more important to let the Constitution of 1791 be our guide, true north and lighthouse.

UPDATE: Here's how the discussion went on radio. Watch the video below.

How did this slip by?

The Left has been foaming at the mouth waiting for this movie to drop and when the trailer finally hit the interwebs, it ended with an embarrassing factual error about the Constitution.

What will happen when the Titan kneels?

Spencer Platt/Getty Images

You can tell that the NFL season is approaching because you can hear the whining from highly-paid athletes as they prepare their kneepads for some kneeling.

In May, the NFL instated a policy that penalizes players who take a knee during the national anthem.

RELATED: VIRTUE SIGNALLING: It's time for the NFL to dump the politics

"A club will be fined by the League if its personnel are on the field and do not stand and show respect for the flag and the Anthem," the statement said. "The Commissioner will impose appropriate discipline on league personnel who do not stand and show respect for the flag and the Anthem."

Tennessee Titan's defensive end Jurrell Casey has decided that he will continue his whining and kneeling.

"I'm going to take my fine," Casey said in an interview. "It is what it is, I ain't going to let them stop me from doing what I want to do. If they want to have these battles between players and organizations, this is the way it's going to be."

Maybe Casey can find work elsewhere. I hear that Universities love to hire self-righteous ranting lunatics.

He added that "At the end of the day, we got to do a job, but I will continue to use my platform to keep on speaking up."

Yes, he does have a job to do. And that job is playing football. His bosses have made it clear that political activism is not part of the job. Who knows, maybe Casey can find work elsewhere. I hear that Universities love to hire self-righteous ranting lunatics. There's also Starbucks. They need a self-righteous CEO.

All anyone can talk about right now is Russia and collusion, and for good reason. Special Counsel Robert Mueller just indicted 12 Russian intelligence officers for cyber attacks and the hacking of cyber-systems in energy, nuclear, water, and manufacturing sectors which you can read about here.

RELATED: There are three tribes when it comes to Trump and Russia: Which tribe do you belong to?

The Trump-Russia scandal, in a word, is maniacal. There are many moving parts that are very hard to solve — or simply don't want to be solved. All of these are "mysteries wrapped in an enigma," asserted Glenn on Wednesday's episode of "The Glenn Beck Radio Program."



From the curious case of Imran Awan to the hacking of DNC servers to "Russian" meddling in elections via social media, all of these deserve scrutiny.

On today's episode, Glenn examined seven scandals that make up the Russia connection:

  1. Russian operatives who used social media to divide Americans during the 2016 election.
  2. The meeting at Trump Tower between Donald Trump Jr., Jared Kushner, Paul Manafort, and Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya.
  3. The Fusion GPS Dossier funded by the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee.
  4. Voter fraud in Illinois.
  5. Hillary Clinton's emails.
  6. Imran Awan. Awan was an IT staffer for Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives who was part of a federal investigation and was arrested on bank fraud charges.
  7. Lastly, the 2016 DNC email leaks.

For the entire explanation, tune into the podcast below:


This article provided courtesy of TheBlaze.

When it comes to Donald Trump, Glenn Beck argues that there are three tribes that categorize the way people examine him regarding his foreign and domestic policy.

Tribe one is the #Resistance. They are the ones who believe that everything President Trump does is bad. They're also the ones who call for impeachment and who label President Trump a "treasonous traitor" even before a summit with a foreign leader takes place.

RELATED: Russia hacking Hillary's emails is no laughing matter

Those, according to Glenn's analysis, include groups like Think Progress, who published an article suggesting that women's rights would be rolled back if the President's SCOTUS nominee is confirmed by the Senate. This tribe also includes progressive talking heads and far Left publications and politicians like The New York Times and Hillary Clinton.

Tribe two are those who defend the President and his actions at all costs. He can do no wrong. These are the people who deny the President's mistakes. They believe the President is a master chess player and everyone else is a pawn in Trump's game.

Both who operate in tribes one and two maintain a "win at all costs" mentality. They don't care what happens as long as their side wins. Glenn calls this a "cult of personality madness."

Tribe three are those who are "free thinkers." These people question the President with boldness and aim for intellectual honesty when evaluating the President's policies and behavior.

Glenn believes tribe one and tribe two are smaller than tribe three.

So, what do all these tribes have to do with Trump and the Russians? Find out in the clip below.

Where do you fall when it comes to Trump and Russia?

When it comes to Donald Trump, Glenn argues that there are three tribes that categorize the way people examine him regarding his foreign and domestic policy.


This article provided courtesy of TheBlaze.