(22).jpg)
Glenn Beck opposed Cash for Clunkers. AP Photo Evan Agostini
As we end the year I thought it would be fun to unveil the top 10 Glenn Beck Moments of 2009. Beck has certainly provided a fair share of entertainment this year as he has become the most prominent Obama administration opponent. So with no further delay allow me to introduce number ten.
Last summer the Obama administration started a program which came to be known as Cash for Clunkers. The government operated a website with the program called Cars.gov which detailed the program including what cares qualified as "clunkers" for which taxpayers could receive a credit toward the purchase of a new vehicle.
It was at this point that Beck decided to warn his audience not to go to the website because if they did the government would then install software which would allow their computers to be tracked or even taken over. Beck read from the website itself in order to justify his claim.
Those who looked into the issue more discovered that the language Beck was referring to was in fact on the dealer website for Cars.gov and not the customer website. Regular customers were therefore never in danger of being exposed to the alleged malware. In addition the language Beck referred to was boilerplate language used on many government websites and was merely intended to allow the government to investigate any instances of fraud. To this date no credible reports have surfaced of any individual's computer being tracked or taken over through the Cars.gov website.
Watch the video below of Beck's Cash for Clunker conspiracy theory and come back tomorrow for #9 of the top 10 Glenn Beck moments of 2009.
Comments
Glenn has a chip embedded in his shoulder and he uses it to receive direct communications from the last Nephite prophet Moroni. That's where he gets all that good gold investment advice and its why I don't mind paying the extra 40% premium from his sponsors. He just makes good sense to me and his other followers. So lay off him Ryan he loves America more than you ever will.
Glenn Beck has never said a single thing that was ever crazy. Glenn is absolutely right about Obama and the Demoncrats. And if you arrogant morons don't stop PRETENDING that Beck isn't right to say it, you will never get back into power again.
2010 = Republican Congress and Republican Senate
2012 = President Palin!!
Love both other comments.
Glenn Beck ROCKS
NObama SUCKS
Yes! Palin in 2012! Let's see if the Mayan End of The World Prophecy is real!!!
Glenn has been vocal about ACORN for years -- then the viral videos surfaced. He was speaking out about Van Jones for months -- then the White House finally admitted "improper vetting". He's called every major stock turn in this crisis, even though he doesn't give financial advice. He's over the top sometimes, but he's on the air 4 hours a day radio/TV. You're going to say something controversial every now and then. The cumulative information he provides is dead on, and I've learned a helluva a lot about the founders of this country from him.
Is Glenn Beck bisexual??? I googled Beck+admits+bisexual and haven't found it. Can someone help me out???
Brook: "and I've learned a helluva a lot about the founders of this country from him" Ok your comments were respectful and I appreciate that but the quote above almost made my eyes bleed. I know you will likely not believe me but I am going to say it anyway. Beck's "history" of founding fathers is tortured at best and a purposeful manipulation at worst. If you want to read about the founding fathers there are wonderful biographies on everyone of them. I would encourage you to read John Adams biography from David McCullough , Jefferson's from R.B Berstein or read the autobiography, and Franklin wrote a nice autobiography himself. If you do you will see that Beck's reading of the founding fathers is overly-simplified and twisted to attack the "progressive" agenda. For example people like Jefferson were much more anti church with state than Beck makes it seem. People like Thomas Paine would have been called "socialist" by Beck.
RYAN: Founding fathers or not the country has indeed gone to a worse place for most people. It is now in the hands of a favored few that will benefit more than most. Forget GB for a second. I would appreciate if you would address the issue of a debt that is unsustainable. That seems to be what GB is focused upon more than even communists in the WH (Van Jones' words not mine).
In a way Ryan is UN-Witt-engly contributing to the exposure of Becks' Ideas. Kind of like a second Video channel for those who don't get Cable. I don't get to see him and have enjoyed the little snipets. I think he shows well in them.
Good post Klatoo....Gort says Merry Christmas..but then you prolly already knew that.
tried of conservative stick up their behind attitudes
Klatoo: Is it truly unsustainable at current levels? Because if so we should just say screw it and keep spending until the inevitable collapse if our current level of debt is unsustainable. Since that is the definition of unsustainable after all. If it is sustainable then we are OK right now yes? So at what point would it truly be "unsustainable"? Beck has no idea and neither do most economists but most would agree we are nowhere near the point right now. Look at historical percentages of debt to GDP. We are nowhere near crisis levels.
Here are some nifty facts though: (1) if you want to reduce the debt you should support health care reform because the CBO says it will reduce the debt by $130 billion over the next ten years, likely more after that (2) The net worth of Americans is growing again even accounting for the private debt. So maybe just maybe our current debt is sustainable. But never mentioned that does he?
Gigi: (1) It made an accusation not based in fact. I will not explain here as I don't like to indulge all of your rants. (2) It was not dealing with the subject of either the article or my reply to klatoo. If you want to post rants on that subject go to that article.
Ryan,
I addressed it at that article, don't you remember? And I thought it was on subject because it goes to your own integrity while accusing Beck.
Unemployment is 10% plus and unofficially in some areas 11-17%. And Ryan says the net worth of Americans is increasing? Is that because the # of 6-figures GOV'T salaries has ballooned since Jan 09 when Obama the Messiah took over? If so that would be TAX money TAKEN from citizens and given to Government employees.
Ryan perpetuates the LIE about the CBO assessment. It takes into account 10 years of TAXES and only 6 years of spending. This is the kind of "creative" accounting that sent many (but not enough) Enron administrators to jail.(Can we now send the Obama team to jail for FRAUD??)
Your assessment of "Unsustainable" is irresonsible and dangerous. 1. We are spending FUTURE Tax revenue not yet collected and which must be serviced with interest. For the Liberal childlike mind I'll translate...that means we have to pay back ALL the current $$$$ AND the interest on it for as long as the principle remains unpaid. You would wait until the patient arrests before angioplasty? Great Call!
Ryan probably doesn't believe that there are FEMA concentration camps either!
What a fascist!
Glenn has been vocal about ACORN for years -- then the viral videos surfaced. He was speaking out about Van Jones for months -- then the White House finally admitted "improper vetting". He's called every major stock turn in this crisis, even though he doesn't give financial advice. He's over the top sometimes, but he's on the air 4 hours a day radio/TV. You're going to say something controversial every now and then. The cumulative information he provides is dead on, and I've learned a helluva a lot about the founders of this country from him.
GB encourages everyone to do their own research about the founders, and all the books recommended here are on his list. Beck does not spare Republicans or Democrats. He excoriated Arlene Spector last week.
The real appeal of Beck is to move beyond the 2-party Machiavellian us vs. them game, elect incorruptable politicians that vote for the people and not their party, and believe in ourselves again.
Brook: Then he should read them. Particularly the part of Paine's biography where he talks about how government should distribute the land of the wealthy to the poor to give them a fair start. Sure sounds like wealth redistribution to me. SOCIALISM! Or maybe he should talk about how Adams thought Jefferson's ideas on revolution were dangerous and radical. Because Beck constantly references those ideas of Jefferson.
Jaimie: Nice try. First the CBO actually projects more savings after the initial ten year period. So when taxes are coming out and benefits are going out the savings actually increases under all estimates. Enron was using mark to market accounting not the same type of accounting that the CBO is using. Look up your facts. Secondly some benefits begin right away. Funny how Republicans complain about everything being "rushed" but they want entire insurance industry overhaul to happen immediately after passage. That is called unrealistic.
RYAN: I see your point. As long as the debt is sustainable I guess they can keep taking your stuff.
Klatoo: Not what I said. I did not put words in your mouth please avoid the same offense with me.
Ryan: My conlusion not yours. But back to the malware. The warning as you said was right there on the website. There were some gov't denials and then some changes were made, but mostly the administration challenged the report as nothing to worry about. One: I say that this rumor could have been avoided or straightened out had it been something the press would report on but this goes completely unreported because it doesn't segue into the MSM editorial viewpoint. Two: I see cash for clunkers as something that the gov't should stay out of. There is too much force involved when an entity as large as the US Gov't insinuates itself into what should be a routine finacial transaction between the car dealer and buyer. And this malware event or non event, whatever, demonstrates that. Also there wouldn't be any fraud if the gov't stayed out of this. Again it is the favored few that will benefit the most.
Klatoo: Yes it was on the DEALERS website. Not accessible by normal customers.
So now you are blaming MSM for a distorted rumor that Beck reports? The reason the MSM did not report on it was because Beck was wrong. Notice how he never brought up the story again after that week? Notice how no stories have come out about malware being installed on computers from the Cars.gov website. This is what Beck does. Floats a crazy theory his followers believe because he is Beck and how could he be wrong. Then if it turns out to be wrong he never mentions it again.
The government involvement thing is a larger question. My only question would be this. During tough economic times like the last year private businesses will naturally decrease spending and layoff workers. Consumers will also spend less. So if the government does not stimulate growth how will the economy recover. Hoover took the philosophy that government should do nothing in such case, that worked well...
Yes, actually. Partially to blame and then you throw in the Dealer website thing; I think for a lot of people, they see their favorite news channels as informative and entertaining. At least that was the paradigm. But the fact that most of the MSM isn’t investigating or accurately reporting on some really important newsworthy events is turning people away and they are turning to FNC and Beck which is reporting it and in a way that most people find compelling and accurate. I would conclude from this that it is the majors that are creating this shift more than Beck.
I know about tough economic times. Maybe you do to. It's nice to get a backup from somewhere. Never complaigned about that. But cash for clunkers is a bad fit for the gov't and the results showed it. But more to the point I think that the tough economic times was caused by congress And I didn't conclude that from watching GB.
Ryan,
Nice try to' nice try'. How are there savings if it's being spent??? And taking money for citizens that could be 'Saved' by them or invested is not a Savings either....it is TAKING money from the Economy through its' citizens and collecting it in the Gov't for the Gov't to spend. Thus making the Gov't the prime mover in the Economy which is what Conservatives have been warning about. And before you bring up Soc Sec....It is broke. No young person today will see any of it. BUT they have to pay into it. Also medicare is pretty much a failure. So now we have another Fraudulent TAX scam on the American people.
I wonder have you read the books you hawked to Brook? I have each one...Have you read the later letters of Adams and Jefferson?? Have you read the Federalist AND THE anti=Federalist papers. In all of this the issues you bring up were discused, bad ideas rejected such as the one mentioned by Paine. And the compromise situated in the balance between the Bill of Rights/Constit
Ryan,
Also you state:"...This is what Beck does. Floats a crazy theory his followers believe because he is Beck and how could he be wrong."
Do you mean like Dan Rather and the phoney National Guard papers??? But the American populace is figuring out more and more the sham that is the old tried and true MSM.
As Klatoo says"..FNC and Beck which is reporting it and in a way that most people find compelling and accurate. I would conclude from this that it is the majors that are creating this shift more than Beck."
Jaimie: Money is saved in the private sector and public. The CBO says deficits will be reduced. The same report show premiums going down. Here is my question Jaimie. If the private market works so well why do we spend almost twice as much on health care as every "socialized" country? Oh and most of them have a higher life expectancy than us too. Hmmmm....maybe government can save money.
Congratulations you have discovered something Beck has never found out. That being that the founders actually had very diverse opinions. They were not all Bible thumping, free market, abolitionists like Beck proposing. They were a messy mix of opinions so when Beck says we need to go back to the ideas of our founders that really does not mean much. And if anything Jefferson came more around to Adams way of thinking at the end of his life. Yet Beck still constantly refers to Jefferson's more radical ideas of his early days.
Jamie: One more question I would REALLY appreciate the answer to, and I am sincere on this. Jefferson's Louisiana Purchase was extra-Constitutional according to almost every legal scholar. Nowhere does the Constitution authorize the executive to buy land. Under your belief system as I understand Jefferson should have never been able to make the deal right? So everything West of the Mississippi would still be owned by the French today yes? If nothing else it seems you would oppose the Louisiana Purchase because we certainly did not have that kind of money at the time. Jefferson essentially borrowed money to complete the deal.
You're right The Louisianna purchase MAY have been extra-constitutional, as were the sedition acts of Adams. As seems always the case for you people, the 20 Century version of the Liberal/Democratic view has to be seen as ALWAYS right always winning...even validated by history. You perpetuate an extremely shallow view of their controversies and their reconcilliations. Jeffersons' main turning towards Adams views was AGAINST the French Rev. So in fact it was a REPUDIATION of Socialism and State control NOT a validation of Pelosi/Obama and all the rest of their CRAP. As you say Nice Try. Jefferson HIGHLIGHTED the absolute horror that the Socialist FR REV brought to France and the rest of Europe. Adams orig View.
Once again ,What you call a "Messy mix opinions" was in fact a respecful pluralism of thought. They were repectful of Private Property as a Fundamental pillar of Freedom..and Judeo-Christian thought is replete throughout our founding documents. SECTARIAN Priviledge was eschewed.
Jamie: May have been?! Oh my. You are very strict on the Obama administration and Democrats but seem perfectly willing to give Jefferson a pass. There is a little bit of inconsistency there to say the least.
As to the rest. Oh my...that is an interesting view of history. The socialist French Revolution? Really? The Third estate was given 1/3 of the vote even though they represented 98% of the population. They were upset about that. If that is socialism then sign me up. I could go on. But I must write more. If you want to have the last word you can. To me you minimize the very real disagreements of the founding fathers but you can attempt to rebut if you wish.
Cont...
It is absolutely amazing that you view the whole process of 1774-1791 as an excercise in nascent SOCIALISM. In so far as Abolition is concerned the WHOLE PROCESS was almost derailed over this issue...that is how deeply it was felt. In your world perhaps it would have been better to just give up to the British Oligarchs over the issue. They were fighting a much bigger "battle" Ryan..You mentioned Paine;
"We have it in our Power to begin the World anew. It is the opportunity to bring forth a system of Government in which the rights of all men should be preserved, that gives value to independence. O ye that love mankind! Ye that dares oppose not only the Tyranny but the Tyrant, stand forth! America shall make a stand, not for herself alone, but for the World."
From Common Sense Th Paine 1775-76
It is an oxymoron to state that Money is saved in the Private and Public sector. The public sector TAKES $$$ from the Private. It cannot save what it takes as Taxes.
I've always had a problem with Cash4Clunkers. To me it seems to go against simple supply and demand economics. How can we push all of these new cars into a market already saturated with used and repossessed vehicles (i.e. Repofinder.com)? Now new cars are worth even less, we have more Americans in debt, and eventually more repossessions.
I'm not interested in "last Words", My 7:05 comment was written as yours posted.
With respect to Jefferson-Obama/Pelosi. I am not strict enough to those who are stealing the Private Property and Freedoms of Generations, to those who are ignoring the interests of over half of the population who are dissatisfied with current directions on various issues.
But, if I were strict....Do two wrongs make a right Ryan?
You say: "The socialist French Revolution? Really? The Third estate was given 1/3 of the vote even though they represented 98% of the population. They were upset about that. If that is socialism then sign me up."
I know you want Socialism in America..Desparately want it...to the extent that you will Justify any twisting of History and warping of interpretation of Constitutional liberties. As you stated before you believe one of the great things about America is the opportunity to VOTE away peoples rights. That is why you are engaged here by Conservatives Commentors.
Here's the thing about the Founding Fathers; they were human beings. They were great men, but they were not perfect men.
They came together with all of their differences in opinion and backgrounds and did what each of them felt was a miracle. I believe it was a miracle too, and that when there are miracles, God is involved.
This is not a perfect country, but it's the best one on the face of the earth and it's because of what these great men did (with the help of God). It is foolish to throw it away to follow other systems that have already proven to be inferior.
Right Gigi, greatest country God gave man, blah blah blah. Then we invaded Iraq.
Lendre,
The Greatest country GOD HELPED great men create. Then they went on to liberate Europe from Fascist Tyranny.....Twice!
You know Jaime, its not a sporting event with God helping coach one side helping kill the other. Do you think God would help us win WWII and then help us invade Iraq 60 years later? Give me a break. Quit listening to Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity.
Lendre,
So..., You don't believe God has anything to do with the founding of this country and it's not the best country on the face of the earth and we don't have the best 'governing system'? What country is better that we should pattern ourselves after?
This Country is great. The problem is Republicans (like Hannity Beck etc...) love this country like a 4 year old loves their mother. No matter what mommy does it must be ok b/c she's mommy and you're 4 years old, you don't know any better so mommy is always going to be great no matter what. Liberals love their country also but realize it's flaws and try to correct those flaws. I don't think Liberals or Republicans have all the right answers but their are some MAJOR flaws that we need to fix. The key is to not just listen to one side or one point of view. You have to listen and accept all points of view. Don't just watch MSNBC or FOX, watch and read everything and make your own decisions.
Paul,
I agree there are major problems we need to fix.
If liberals love their country, though, they have a funny way of showing it. (see Lendre's comments which are typical).
And if you mean 'fundamentally transform' it, then be honest enough to say what you want to transform it into.
What I see going on is 'fundamentally transforming' it into something that resembles European socialism.
If that's what you want, defend it. If that's not what you want then you'd better pay attention, because that's where we're going.
And don't just ridicule me for saying it. Tell me what the difference is between what we're doing and what has been a miserable failure around the world?
jaime says:
"Lendre,
The Greatest country GOD HELPED great men create. Then they went on to liberate Europe from Fascist Tyranny.....Twice!"
all while their troops were separated by color
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuskegee_Airmen
Walrus,
I don't think anyone has ever made the case that this country is perfect.
There is nothing in the constitution that would allow for segregation. That was crap that democrat politicians initiated after the civil war and justified somehow in their own sick minds.
It doesn't mean that this isn't the best country in the world. We didn't have to 'fundamentally transform' this country to repent for segregation (which sould never have been done in the first place).
Do you support Obama's goal to 'fundamentally transform' America? Definition of 'fundamentally':having to do the the 'foundation' or 'base'.....
If you do support transforming it; what do you want to transform it into?
All arrows point to socialism. If you guys don't want that, you're sure not complaining that we're going in the wrong direction. Why anyone wants to give more and more power to government, with it's track record of corruption, greed, and inefficiency is beyond my wildest imagination.
Walrus,
I just looked up some more information civil rights. The Civil Rights Act of 1964: 75% of 'Nay' votes in the House were Democrats & 80% of the 'Nay' votes in the Senate were Dems (included Robert Bird). How the media and the libs get away with portraying republicans as racists is another thing that I will never understand. It's all a big LIE!
Gigi says:
"Walrus,
I just looked up some more information civil rights. The Civil Rights Act of 1964: 75% of 'Nay' votes in the House were Democrats & 80% of the 'Nay' votes in the Senate were Dems (included Robert Bird). How the media and the libs get away with portraying republicans as racists is another thing that I will never understand. It's all a big LIE!"
"...Senator Richard Russell, Jr. warned President Johnson that his strong support for the civil rights bill "will not only cost you the South, it will cost you the election."[19] The South indeed started to vote increasingly Republican after 1964".
those democrat racists moved over to the republican party after and because of the civil rights act of 1964...THOSE that you speak of became republicans because of the civil rights act of 1964...they are in YOUR party now....you just didn't read far enough or you chose to leave out that important information.
Walrus,
I believe that Robert Bird is the only one left and he is STILL A DEMOCRAT (and gets a pass!)! and why did you ignor everything else I said?!
"....you just didn't read far enough or you chose to leave out that important information. "
Wanna place any bets on which one it was, walrus? LMAO
I'm still trying to figure out the TWO liberations from Fascist Tyranny, myself.
Hmmmm.... seems you're once again soft on 'facts' gigi; spinning from a fractional sample.
Here's the actual vote breakdown:
The final Senate version:
Democratic Party: 46-21 (69%-31%)
Republican Party: 27-6 (82%-18%)
The Senate version, voted on by the House:
Democratic Party: 153-91 (63%-37%)
Republican Party: 136-35 (80%-20%)
In other words, a majority of BOTH parties supported it - walrus is correct that it was the Dixiecrats who opposed it.
Incidentally, the Senate version was a bipartisan bill introduced by Everett Dirksen (R-IL), Thomas Kuchel (R-CA), Hubert Humphrey (D-MN), and Mike Mansfield (D-MT).
As for the shift in perception of Republicans, it began with Goldwater's opposition to the Civil Rights Act and came to fruit with the "Southern Strategy."
Snark,
The stats I used were correct! You misread them.
Robert Bird is still a democrat senator, filabustered Civil Rights Act 1964 for 14 hours, was in the KKK , wrote a letter refusing to serve with Blacks in armed services and gets a pass!
Liberal heros, W. Wilson & FDR were commanders & cheif & have 'horrible' civil rights records for blacks!
Democrats are great at repeating a LIE til it sticks. That doesn't make it TRUE!
And you guys are great at zeroing in on one point to debate and refuse to look at the whole picture!
We have the best country in the world. Why do you want to 'fundamentally change' it and why do you trust a corrupt and inefficient government to run so much of our lives when history teaches that the more power the government gets the more it abuses that power?
I didn't MISREAD squat, gigi - I simply refrained from calling you a deliberate propagandist by spinning your statements using only part of the data.
Allow me to correct that now: You are deliberately trying to mislead readers by giving them partial information to make it appear Democrats opposed the Civil Rights Act - when in fact it was a subset of Democrats and THE CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICAN CANDIDATE FOR PRESIDENT THAT YEAR who opposed it.
Now, there are the FACTS - so feel free to run away again.
How could I twist it? Your stats look just the same. Whatever!
The republican candidate for president did vote 'yes' for the Civil Rights Act in 1957 under Eisenhower. Yes he voted 'no' in 64.
Why don't you address the fact that Bird gets a pass, but the rest of us are racist by association?
Wilson gets a pass, FDR gets a pass, but I'm supposed to take responsibilty for Goldwater?
Why do you keep ignoring my other points? Can't defend your political positions???? You are sure hard on people for not anwering you, considering you will do nothing but 'SNARK'!!!
Byrd has been dead from the neck up for decades, but the illiterate leeches of West Virginia keep re-electing him because he does such a good job of ripping off the rest of the nation's taxpayers to fill the troughs at home.
You ain't ever seen ME defend him - but at least I can spell his name.
YOU tried that discredited canard of claiming the Republicans are the true party of civil rights by 1) ignoring that it was a subset of southern Dems who voted against the '64 act; 2) ignoring the fact that the de facto leader of the Republican Party that year also voted against it; 3) ignoring Nixon's 'Southern Strategy' that effectively wrote off any African American votes in favor of winning the southern white votes; and 4) ignoring how many of those opposing Democrats in '64 became Republicans over the issue.
Heck, in 2005 the RNC chairman admitted as much to the NAACP convention: Republicans walked away from blacks.
Pages
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!