This is a rush transcript from "Glenn Beck," February 16, 2010. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.
GLENN BECK, HOST: Barack Obama decided now to connect with the anger in America. I thought it was hope. Actually, this was false hope when it said, "hope" down here. I'm doing something called the "American Revival" — "American Revival." And I painted the logo for it. This is just a sneak peek of it. I'll show you in a minute. I'll show you what real hope looks like.
But first, let me go back to the White House and the anger. They've announced the new four-point communication strategy because remember, he hadn't given enough speeches and you just didn't get it because you're a dumb, dumb, dummy — you know what I'm saying?
OK. Here is their communication strategy: First thing they have to change this year is they have to change the speaking backdrops. Wow.
Number two, less media interaction.
Three, return to disciplined messaging about hope.
Four, a more direct, rapid response to critics. I don't know if they're going to hire Tonya Harding just to come in and club me in the knees now — I'm not sure.
But I don't want to throw you off. Don't want to throw you off. Remember the last thing: It's more of a direct rapid response to their critics. Take them out.
Quantum leap here, but follow me all the way over from that story to this story in The New York Times today, where there is a completely unrelated 12-page printed story describing the Tea Party movement. It's great: "Lighting a Fuse for Rebellion on the Right." Oh, rebellion.
It's painting the Tea Party movement as a bunch of racist militia-loving, birther-supporting, Branch Davidian-sympathizing, civil war-starting whack jobs. You know what I mean? They left their lives on the compound and now they've started organizing to make conspiracy theories to go from totally geek to totally chic.
OK — 12 pages. We printed them out — 12 — littered with demeaning, marginalizing dribble such as: "When the Tea Party uprising gathered force last spring" — the uprising? — "one could not help but wonder why the explosion of conservative anger coincided with a series of violent acts by right-wing extremists."
The article continues: We don't have any evidence they're connected to violence. But still, there are troubling parallels, I see. Yes, troubling parallels. Elementary, my dear Watson. Excellent detective work, New York Times.
The very same old frail, tea-bagging white people that the media roundly mocked for being old, frail, white people are now starting a Constitution cartel and blazing a trail of violence all across America.
New York Times, thank you for connecting the dots on this one, because I would have never noticed it. I mean, after watching millions and millions of Tea Party people gather across the country for the last year, there was nary an arrest nor a broken window. It all seemed quiet and peaceful actually to me.
But apparently, I was wrong.
Thank you for uncovering the hidden violence of those far-right-wing Unabomber wannabes who tricked us all in thinking that they're just harmless old people, who are now back in their mountain shacks wiring up explosives and drinking cans of Ensure.
The intellectual curiosity of The New York Times is boundless except, of course, when they wander too far over to the left. Then, they seem to — I don't know I get sleepy over here on the left.
Maybe I missed it, but I haven't seen The New York Times connect the dots from the actual violence from the left — like the latest nut job, a professor from Alabama who killed three colleagues. Yes, there she is.
The Boston Herald reports that "a family source said Amy Bishop, a mother of four children, the youngest, a third grade boy, was a far-left political extreme who was obsessed with President Obama to the point of being off-putting."
It's weird. When it's a nut on the left, isolated incident. We're still looking. We have no idea what caused it. But on the right? I have no evidence that they're connected at all but the violence is troubling. The parallels here to the old white, tea-bagging hate mongers, you know, with their walkers.
This is going to be the mantra from the media going forward: Tea Party equals right-wing crazies, birthers, 9/11 Truthers. Crazy knows no party lines. You know, you've got the — what's his name? Philip Berg, he was the Democrat who filed the earliest known birther lawsuit before the Democratic Convention.
The Daily Beast blog traced the birther movement back to Hillary Clinton and her campaign. It's not from the right. It was from the left.
By the way, 9/11 truther, Van Jones, is scheduled to speak with Democratic Senator Kirsten Gillibrand next month.
So here how it works, OK? We have the crazy 9/11 Truthers and the birthers. We have the birthers and the 9/11 Truthers. And they're over here. Got it? Yes. And then, over here, we have crazy birthers and the 9/11 Truthers. That's what we have, OK?
We have maybe five percent over here, maybe — maybe. And five percent over here. That leaves you here, in the middle. If you believe these things - I'm not saying you shouldn't speak out. You should. You should speak out. If you believe the government killed 3,000 people intentionally, you should speak out.
There couldn't be anything more important. But they don't usually speak out. For instance, Van Jones — no, he kept it quiet. You see, everybody keeps that quiet. That's why it's dangerous. That is why I asked candidate Debra Medina in Texas — she's running for governor — this question on my radio program last week:
(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)
BECK: Do you believe the government was in any way involved with bringing down of the World Trade Centers on 9/11?
DEBRA MEDINA, TEXAS GUBERNATORIAL CANDIDATE: I don't — I don't have all of the evidence there, Glenn, so I don't — I'm not in a place — I have not been out publicly questioning that. I think some very good questions have been raised in that regard. There are some very good arguments. And I think the American people have not seen all of the evidence there. So I've not taken a position on that.
(END AUDIO CLIP)
BECK: Yes, I don't think American people have seen all the evidence on there either, but I still don't think that George Bush and Dick Cheney were wiring the World Trade Center. Not really a difficult question: The answer is no.
Now, there are some who are angry at me for even asking this question. They were upset because it hurt her in the polls. And they said, "Hey, it's just one issue. You have to look past that one issue. You know, it has nothing to do with state politics."
You're right, you're right. It doesn't.
But if I wanted to be the governor in New York and I said, "Hey, by the way, I don't even know if the Earth is really round. It might be flat. There are some good questions out there from flat-Earthers," would I be the governor of New York?
I don't think so.
The point is, we have a window of opportunity here. The New York Times did this story today because Tea Party movement is powerful. It is making a difference. It is connected to the White House engaging with anger. Got it? They're connected.
It's all about the people.
But you know what? Here's the problem with the tea party movement, all movements — all movements, this could be Republican, Democrat, all of them — if you have the movement, generally here centered on the Constitution and common sense, you've got a few people here and over here, left and right, that wouldn't mind hijacking this movement. Hijacking a movement for crazy people or people just in bed with the GOP or the DNC.
The movement that America is looking for is about independence. Some people want to co-opt the 90 percent in the center. You've got to not be co-opted. Others are trying to make those people in middle, the 90 percent, just look like the fringes. Either way, it's not good.
You must resist the urge to just get somebody elected that's just "not that guy."
You must stand on principle. We move forward in America with honor. If we don't, we'll be repeating the same mistakes that led us to this point. And that would be crazy.
Content and Programming Copyright 2010 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2010 Roll Call, Inc. All materials herein are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written permission of Roll Call. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.