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.

In the final days before the 2020 election, President Donald Trump is gaining among black voters, particularly men, because his record of accomplishments "speaks for itself" and the "façade" that President Trump is a racist "just doesn't ring true," argued sports columnist Jason Whitlock on "The Glenn Beck Radio Program" Tuesday.

Jason, who recently interviewed the president at the White House for OutKick.com, shared his thoughts on why he believes many black Americans — notably celebrities such as Kanye West, Ice Cube, and 50 Cent — are breaking from the "façade" that President Trump is a "flaming racist."

"I really believe the facts are starting to speak for themselves, and that Donald Trump's record of accomplishments, particularly as it relates to African Americans, speaks for itself," Jason told Glenn. "He actually has a record to stand on, unlike even Barack Obama. When [Obama] was president, I don't think he had much of a record to stand on, in terms of, 'Hey, what did he actually deliver for African Americans?' President Trump has things he can stand on and, you know, beyond that I think black people understand when he starts talking about black unemployment rate. And America's unemployment rate. And then, when you add in for black men, the façade we've been putting on [President Trump] … you know, this whole thing that he's some flaming racist, it just doesn't ring true."

Jason suggested that Trump's fearlessness, unabashed masculinity, and record of keeping his promises resonates with men in the black community. He also weighed in on how media and social media's bias plays a huge role in convincing people to hate President Trump while ignoring Antifa and others on the Left.

"I keep explaining to people, Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, they're some of the most secular places on earth. And we've reduced everyone to a tweet, that we disagree with," he added.

Watch the video below to catch more of the conversation:

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.

Megyn Kelly is not happy about the "disgusting" media coverage of President Donald Trump, specifically pointing to Lesley Stahl's "60 Minutes" interview on CBS Sunday.

On the radio program, Megyn told Glenn Beck the media has become so blinded by the "Trump Derangement Syndrome" that they've lost their own credibility — and now they can't get it back.

"It's disgusting. It's stomach-turning," Megyn said of the media's coverage of the president. "But it's just a continuation of what we've seen over the past couple of years. Their 'Trump Derangement Syndrome' has blinded them to what they're doing to their own credibility. They can't get it back. It's too late. They've already sacrificed it. And now no one is listening to them other than the hard partisans for whom they craft their news."

Megyn also discussed how she would have covered the recent stories about Hunter and Joe Biden's alleged corruption. Watch the video below to catch more of the conversation:


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.

Imagine sometime next year, getting called before HUWAC – the House Un-Woke Activities Committee.

"Are you or have you ever been a member of the un-woke?"

Something like that is not as far-fetched as you might think.

Last week, Robert Reich, the former Secretary of Labor during the Clinton administration, now a UC Berkeley professor, tweeted this:

Since the 1970s, there have been dozens of "Truth Commissions" around the world like the kind Robert Reich wants in America. Most of these have been set up in Africa and Latin America. Usually it happens in countries after a civil war, or where there's been a regime change – a dictator is finally overthrown, and a commission is set up to address atrocities that happened under the dictator. Or, as in the commissions in East Germany and Czechoslovakia, atrocities under communism. Or, in the most famous example, South Africa's Truth and Reconciliation commission addressed the decades of apartheid that ravaged that nation.

These commissions usually conclude with an official final report. These commissions and reports have served as a means of governments trying to close a dark chapter of their country's history, or provide emotional catharsis, as a way to generally move on. Sometimes it kind of works for people, most of the time it leaves people clamoring for more justice.

Here's how one professor described truth commissions in an article in The Conversation last year. He wrote:

The goal of a truth commission… is to hold public hearings to establish the scale and impact of a past injustice, typically involving wide-scale human rights abuses, and make it part of the permanent, unassailable public record. Truth commissions also officially recognize victims and perpetrators in an effort to move beyond the painful past… Some have been used cynically as tools for governments to legitimize themselves by pretending they have dealt with painful history when they have only kicked the can down the road.

See, this is the problem with a lot of "Truth" commissions – they are inherently political. Even if you trust your government and give them all the benefit of the doubt in the world that their Truth commission is trying to do the right thing, it is ALWAYS going to be political. Because these truth commissions are never set up by those who have LOST power in government. They're always established by those who have WON power.

The Deputy Executive Director of the International Center for Transitional Justice says one of the main points in these Truth commissions is that "the victims become protagonists."

A Department of Anti-racism is entirely within the realm of possibility.

So, who are the victims in Robert Reich's America? People like him, members of the far-Left who had to endure the atrocities of four years of a president with different political ideas. What an injustice. I mean, the left's suffering during the Trump administration is almost on the level of apartheid or genocide – so we totally need a Truth commission.

There have been lots of calls for the U.S. to have its own Truth and Reconciliation commission, especially around racial injustice.

This past June, Democratic Congresswoman Barbara Lee of California introduced legislation to establish the " United States Commission on Truth, Racial Healing, and Transformation."

Ibram X. Kendi – the high priest of anti-racism, and author of Target's current favorite book " Antiracist Baby" – proposes a Constitutional anti-racism amendment. This amendment would:

establish and permanently fund the Department of Anti-racism (DOA) comprised of formally trained experts on racism and no political appointees. The DOA would be responsible for pre-clearing all local, state and federal public policies to ensure they won't yield racial inequity, monitor those policies, investigate private racist policies when racial inequity surfaces, and monitor public officials for expressions of racist ideas. The DOA would be empowered with disciplinary tools to wield over and against policymakers and public officials who do not voluntarily change their racist policy and ideas.

If you think that is far-fetched, you haven't been paying attention to the Left's growing radicalism. In a Joe Biden-Kamala Harris administration, a Department of Anti-racism is entirely within the realm of possibility. And of course, such a DOA would never stop at policing government.

We're in a dangerous, precarious moment in our history. Given the events of 2020, should Democrats gain the White House, the Senate, and the House, how many commissions will be in our future? They will suddenly have plenty of political capital to drag the nation through years of commission hearings.

And the Left's form of justice is never satisfied. You think it will stop at a T&R commission on race? MSNBC's Chris Hayes tweeted this month about the need for a commission to deal with Americans who are skeptical about wearing masks:

Or what about a Truth commission on religion? I mean, look at those reckless churches spreading Covid this year. Or this would be a big one – a T&R commission on climate change deniers.

The Left is highly selective when it comes to truth. That's why they are the very last group you want in charge of anything with "Truth and Reconciliation" in the title.

This is one of the most incredibly frustrating things about the Left in America today. The Left insists there is no such thing as absolute truth, while simultaneously insisting there are certain approved truths that are undeniable.

So, you can't question "Science" – even though that's pretty much what every great scientist in history did.

You can't question racism as the explanation for all of existence – because, well, just because.

You can't question third-party "Fact-checkers" – because the powers that be, mainly Big Tech right now, have decided they are the Truth referees and you have to trust what they say because they're using certified external fact-checkers. They just forgot to tell you that they actually fund these third-party fact-checkers. It's like if McDonald's told you to trust third-party health inspectors that they were paying for.

The Left thinks it has a monopoly on Truth. They're the enlightened ones, because they've had the correct instruction, they're privy to the actual facts. It's psychotic arrogance. If you don't buy what they're selling, even if you're just skeptical of it, it's because you either don't have the facts, you willingly deny the facts, or you're simply incapable of grasping the truth because you're blinded by your raging racism problem. It's most likely the racism problem.

The Left never learns from its own preaching. For the past 60-plus years they've decried the House Un-American Activities Committee for trying to root out communists, getting people canceled, ruining Hollywood careers, etcetera. But a HUAC-type committee is precisely what Robert Reich is describing and many on the Left want. It's not enough for Trump to be voted out of office. Americans who helped put him there must be punished. They don't want reconciliation, they want retribution. Because the Left doesn't simply loathe Donald Trump, the Left loathes YOU.

President Donald Trump's performance at last night's final presidential debate was "brilliant" and "the best he's ever done," Glenn Beck said on the radio program Friday.

Glenn described the moments he thought President Trump came across as "sincere," "kind," and "well-informed," as well as Joe Biden's biggest downfalls for of the night — from his big statement on wanting to eliminate the oil industry to his unsurprising gaffes as the debate neared the end. But, the question remains: was Trump's "brilliant performance" enough to win the election?

Watch the video be low to get Glenn's take on the final debate before the November 3 election:


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.