'Glenn Beck': Violation of Basic Principles

This is a rush transcript from "Glenn Beck," May 11, 2010. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

GLENN BECK, HOST: Welcome to the Glenn Beck Program. Tonight, we are quickly becoming a country I don't even recognize anymore. You won't believe when I show you where we were a year ago to where we are today. And now, there's something else is happening and I don't see anybody on television talking about it.

The principles — the bedrock principles of our country — I don't recognize either. But it starts with the administration. The principles don't match the policies. And it's time for somebody in the media to ask why. That's me, tonight, with you. Come on.


BECK: Hello, America.

I want to — I want to have a serious conversation with you tonight and I come to you trying to figure out what's going on. I'm a real — I'm a stickler on things like consistency. Things have to be consistent. I mean, you either have principles or you don't. Principles. Principles. Base everything on principles. Get the policies from those principles.OK.

What were the principles that Barack Obama said that he had when he was elected, OK? When he was elected, the principles not — how many times did you hear this: "We're going to stop just snatching people off the street"? I mean, I don't remember us ever snatching people off the street. But, apparently, we were during the campaign, we were just snatching Muslims off the street. He was going to stop that. I haven't seen it, so we must have stopped it. And everyone was going to get a fair trial. Do you remember that one? Going to have a fair trial.

The next was right to privacy. You have a right to privacy. This government is out of control. The next one was no interrogation techniques, basically no torture or anything. Don't even ask a hard question. Don't keep the lights on too long. Let them take a nap. And the last one was no war. They're going to stop the war. No war. OK? Those were the ideas: fair trial, privacy, interrogation techniques and no war. OK. Those were the principles.

So what were the policies? Well, not snatching people off the street and fair trial. You can't hold terror suspects indefinitely. They wanted to close Guantanamo Bay. OK, these match. I could say your principles match your policies. Great. Right to privacy. Match. No warrant-less wiretaps. That's what they were going for.

Third one: no interrogation techniques. That's "ensure basic rights." I think — I think this one and this one kind of match. You can't hold people, terror suspects. You got to close Guantanamo — because what we're doing in Guantanamo? We're asking tough questions and leaving the lights on. You have basic rights. Interrogation techniques, when do you think that happens?

The last one is no war. They said they were going to stop the war. This is where they got really weasely. We're going to stop the war. No war. We're going to end right away. Well, they did. They just calling — it's what progressives always do. They just it an overseas contingency plan.

War? What war? No, it's a plan now, not a war. OK. This board I understand. I think you're weasely. I think the wiretap thing didn't happen, but I think you're weasely, but I get it. I get it. OK. That's politics in America the way it normally happens. Now, let me show you some things that don't match, because remember, these are our principles. This is what Obama said his principles were.

Something is wrong. And I need you to figure out why. Let's start at the beginning. We're against snatching people off the street in a fair trial, right? How does that match with what's happening today? Not a lot of people have seen this.

Let me show you the person we just nominated for Supreme Court justice, Elena Kagan. Now, people don't know an awful lot about her because — I mean, she doesn't have a deep catalog of writing. She wasn't — she wasn't a judge before. Not a problem. Some people have a problem with that, but this is a new thing that everybody was a judge. You can't count on the media to investigate. So maybe you should because I see in the media — these are the hard-hitting facts that we know about Kagan. Here they are. Watch.


REPORTER: Her interests reflect her openness. She loves softball and poker.

REPORTER: Accomplished poker player, opera lover and given that nickname Justice Marshall gave to her, she's 5'3."


BECK: OK. She loves softball and poker. I don't know — I don't know what that means to you and me. It'd like to see the media maybe spend a little more time looking into some of the things and some of the things that she said. For instance, how about this answer to a question at her confirmation hearing for solicitor general? Watch carefully.


SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM R-S.C.: When you talk about the physical battlefield, if our intelligence agency should capture someone in the Philippines that is suspected of financing al-Qaeda worldwide, would you consider that person part of the battlefield, even though we're in the Philippines, if they were involved in al-Qaeda activity? Holder said, the attorney general said, "Yes, I would." Do you agree with that?



BECK: OK. In her testimony, she is talking about — she's talking about if someone is suspected — suspected of financing terror. We're talking about the definition of the battlefield. Now the battlefield moved some place else, it's moved to — it's moved over here to the Philippines he says. Well, what about Nebraska? Suspected of financing, not guilty, not proven — suspected of funding al-Qaeda. That means you can be declared an enemy combatant and treated the same as Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, you know, the hairy-back guy that we waterboarded.

If you were suspected of funding terrorists — wow, I mean, I think we've come a long way here — with this new justice and Eric Holder, we've come a long way from when Obama wanted to make sure we had terror trials right here in New York City with the hairy-back guy. OK. So, we now have: you can hold a suspect without trial — a suspect. If we suspect them, you can — you can hold them without trial. OK. Great.

Now, let's try number two: right to privacy. I don't — I don't see anybody reporting on this. It disturbs me. The DOJ right now is arguing in court that if you want privacy, you better go some place else. You don't have a privacy of location, which means they can track you wherever you are. Where is Glenn Beck? He's in the studio at Fox. How do you know? He has his cell phone on him. Your cell phone can be triangulated.

You have no right to — or no reasonable right to privacy of location, they say. They say you have no reasonable expectation of privacy in your own e-mail. What does this mean? This means they can track you or read your e-mail without a warrant. Help me out on this principle because they were against no — they said no warrant-less wiretaps, right to privacy. No warrant-less wiretaps. Now, our policy apparently is that they can read, track, without warrant.

The third one — Attorney General Eric Holder is now coming out and saying that we should make exceptions when to apply Miranda rights to people. Here he is.


ERIC HOLDER, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL: We're now dealing with international terrorism and I think that we have to think about perhaps modifying the rules that interrogators have and somehow coming up with something that is flexible and is more consistent with the threat that we now face.

We want to work with Congress to come up with a way in which we make our public safety exception more flexible and, again, more consistent with the threat that we face.


BECK: OK. Notice he said international terrorism. But Miranda rights came up because of a U.S. citizen — a U.S. citizen. So, why do you want to not Mirandize somebody? Why is it important? Because you can use interrogation techniques before you Mirandize them. You don't have to give them an attorney. You don't want to talk — you can make them talk. What do you think they are going to have a cake for a few hours before we Miranda them? Yes, we're just going to have to sit here for a while, a nice, cool, comfortable — are the lights too bright? You think that's what's happening? They don't want to read Miranda rights to citizens. How does that fit with this principle? It doesn't. It doesn't. It's all on an "if." No Miranda rights if you are suspected.

And war — no war. Is there a war going on? Well, yes, there is. I think there's two things. I think there's a war and there's an overseas contingency plan. Maybe the other is a war. Maybe it's just — you know, in-nation contingency plan. We all talk about al Qaeda. But these principles aren't fitting with what they have demonstrated in their principles and in their actions in the past. Nothing is consistent here. Something is not right.

You know, last week, I couldn't believe that — that answer I gave on Fox last week about the Miranda rights, that was off the top of my head. I didn't — I just got up. I mean, I was up for about 20 minutes while I did this episode. And even the founders of — the founder of Tides, remember that? The really shady organization that I'm like — run for your life, it's Drummond Pike! Drummond Pike wrote this, "Why I love Glenn Beck." He says, "Beck has just done the right thing, and he deserves praise, even from his rhetorical enemies."

Are you kidding me? It's Tides! I mean, I read that one, I'm like, I should rethink this whole thing. Jon Stewart, The Huffington Post, MSNBC, they all said that I was the voice of reason in all of this. Watch.


JON STEWART, TV HOST: This next clip is going to hurt me. As much as it's going to hurt you, Chuck.


STEWART: Roll tape of someone being far more reasonable about reading a suspect his Miranda rights, please.

BECK: He has all the rights under the Constitution.

RACHEL MADDOW, MSNBC: We're seeing people like most — I think most notably today Glenn Beck...


MADDOW: ...a host of FOX News Channel — saying actually it's important that the suspects are read their Miranda rights. We can't shred the Constitution just when it's not — just because it's inconvenient.

HOST: I never thought that I'd see Glenn Beck as a beacon of reason when it comes to this specific issue, but what's going on here?


BECK: I don't know why he wouldn't see me as a beacon of reason on this specific issue. I'm very consistent on this specific issue. I mean, look, we don't shred the Constitution. OK, so here they are. This was — this was last week. They're all for the Miranda rights thing, but they don't take on Eric Holder.

What about the — where is everybody on the right to privacy in your own e-mail? Where is everyone on the right to location? Where is everyone on new Supreme Court justice that could be there for the next four decades who says if you are under suspicion of financing a terror group, suspicion of financing, you can lose your rights and go to jail indefinitely without a trial? What?

Here's another principle that we've always had in America. We've always had it: "Innocent until proven guilty." How does — how does that one work with this? You're innocent until proven guilty. But I can't be proven guilty because I'm being held indefinitely without a trial. I'm guilty until proven innocent. How does it work? That's why you need a warrant, you see. You need a warrant for citizens. You have to go to a judge. You have to convince the judge that you have enough reason, you got enough evidence here to say, look, this guy, I think this guy is guilty. All we need is to listen to his phones or all we need to do is this or this or this. We need a warrant to do it. You're asking permission to be able to go and violate somebody's right. No, no, no. Now, no, you can just go look without a warrant. You can just arrest them on suspicion. Citizens in jail, indefinitely, without justice.

What are we turning into? Who is for this? Why are there not people speaking out about this? This isn't a Republican/Democrat. This is nothing. This is a principle.

Let me add one more to it: freedom of speech. Where does freedom of speech come from? I mean, that's the big — that's number one. Where is that? This one was such a bedrock principle for those on the left, because — and I was with you, I was with you. I didn't like, what's her name, Sheehan — Cindy Sheehan, I didn't like her. I thought she was wrong and I thought she was a socialist. But she had a right to do it. I defend her right to speak out.

When Hollywood — boy, you want to — talk about being on talk radio. During the war and defending Hollywood's right to speak out and saying, no, you don't boycott their stuff. You don't, just — if you can't handle it, just don't go to the movie anymore. But you don't boycott anybody. They have a right. In fact, I was on talk radio, on conservative talk radio — if you want to talk about popular, it was me! Saying they not only have a right to do it, they have a responsibility. This is all of our country.

If you think our country is going down the wrong path, you have a responsibility. Leave the Hollywood people alone. It doesn't mean you have to talk nice about them, but they absolutely have a right. It is the most American thing you can do to speak out against your government. Where are those people now? Where are those people now? I agreed with you when you said you had a right to speak out. Now, here's something in the media I saw today and if I see one more stupid person in the media talking about the Xbox thing in this speech from Saturday, I think my head is going to explode. Everybody in the media is missing the point. Listen to what the president said on Saturday. Listen to him.


PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: You're coming of age in a 24/7 media environment that bombards us with all kinds of content and exposes us to all kinds of arguments, some of which don't always rank that high on the truth meter.


BECK: Yes.


OBAMA: And with iPods and iPads and Xboxes and Playstations — none of which I know how to work — information becomes a distraction, a diversion, a form of entertainment, rather than a tool of empowerment, rather than the means of emancipation.


BECK: Did you hear this? Media, can you get this story right, please. It has nothing to do with Xbox. Are you that stupid? It has nothing to do — what kind of information do you get from your Xbox or Playstation? You get no information from them! That phrase is a distraction. Name the president in the history of America that says information is just a — it's a diversion, it's distracting? That can be too much information out there. Some information is — we got to stop it. It's bad for the republic, some information. I've never seen a president say that. Please send it in. If you've seen it, if you have a videotape, a film, send it in. I want to see it. I want to see it.

I've only seen this in countries where they end up burning books. "Question with boldness even the very existence of God; for if there be a God, he must surely rather honest questioning over blindfolded fear" — Thomas Jefferson. I try to read as much as I can on both sides of the issue. I want to know what the other side is. Have you read "That's Capital"? I have. Should it be banned? Of course not. Read it. It's the ramblings of an idiot. Read it. I want you to read it.

Karl Marx, read as much as you can. Do me a favor. Those in the administration — put the Mao book down. I know you got it. You got it mastered. Read the federalist papers. Read them both and then decide. Information is bad — when? When did information become bad?

We're changing. We're changing. Look at — these policies, you can hold — you can hold without a trial if you are suspected. You can read and track without a warrant. There's no Miranda rights if — if — we suspect. And war. OK, these don't work if we're talking about al-Qaeda because we know what they've already done with al-Qaeda. We know. So, what are the principles? These are the policies. We have to track-back now to find out what their principles are.

The principles are: you can hold without a trial indefinitely if you are a suspect. The principle must be that terror at home is becoming a problem and we have to do anything. Now, wait a minute. Terror is becoming a problem here at home but with al-Qaeda. And you're not doing things you should be doing. We already have systems in place from these. How about this? Read or track without a warrant — they can read or track you without a warrant. You have no reasonable right to privacy. Well, the principle must be that you're a suspect of the state. The state controls you.

The policy, no Miranda rights — if they suspect you. In other words, the principle must be: you can lose rights until proven innocent. That's a huge change. Look, you want to lose your rights, go through court. You'll lose them. If you're a citizen, go through court and you'll lose the right. This is — we'll hold you without trial indefinitely. You're guilty until proven innocent. Huge change in America. And is there a war? Yes. There's a war on those who disagree.

Let me — let me ask you — let me ask you this: Do you remember the thing that came out, the report that came out from St. Louis that said the Tea Partygoers are terrorists? If you are a Ron Paul supporter and you got a "don't tread on me" flag and you're at a Tea Party, you could be a terrorist. That was the report.

Now, let me ask you: you write a check to some tea party group in some state and then some nut job goes off and blows up a building, and they find a tea party shirt at the guy's house. Our next Supreme Court justice — are they in favor of putting you in jail? Can the government scoop you or anybody else who wrote a check to the tea party and hold you indefinitely until the trial or no trial at all? Can they read your e-mail without any warrant whatsoever? Could you they shut you down if you're providing too much information?

These are the questions — these are the questions the responsible media should be asking today. Back in a minute.


BECK: Last night's program, we talked about the things that newspapers and magazines said a year ago. Specifically, last night on the program, we talked about an article that ran in Time magazine and they were, you know, making fun of me back then, a year ago. And I got home last night and I was watching the TV show and I thought — wow, this is — look at this. Last year at this time when they wrote it, I — I mean, I didn't have any proof. I just — I just had my gut and I could see the tea leaves and it was crazy. But I didn't have any evidence. I said these things may come.

Well, let's go back over that article again tonight because you need to see it. It was — it was called "Tears of a Clown." And these were some of the things that seemed crazy to Time magazine one year ago. Let's decide how crazy things really are today, OK? Here I mentioned that I fear that the United States is on a long march to fascism. That's what I said. That's what they said in this article, OK?

Well, let's see. Patriot Act is now permanent. They were against that. Patriot Act is now permanent. We're now discussing the rights of the U.S. citizens, not being read to them. You can be held indefinitely if you are suspected of crimes. That's pretty huge.

The administration is telling us that we have no right to assume privacy of location. In other words, they can track you without a warrant. Our regulatory czar, Cass Sunstein, has recommended government agents infiltrate American citizen groups. Government agents infiltrate — what — I mean, that's KGB, isn't it? Any group that disagrees with the administration is now called anti-government.

The FCC was told by the courts that they couldn't do net neutrality. They said, that's fine. We'll just declare the Internet a public utility. We're doing it anyway. Wow! The vast majority of Americans oppose government-run health care. The government did it anyway. I mean, I could go on for 10 minutes with this stuff, but you get the idea. Is there any sign of fascism from a year ago? A year ago, the Time article called it crazy, "to allege that fat cats and bureaucratic bloodsuckers are plundering our future." That's a quote from the article.

What a stretch that is. I mean, we're only $120 trillion in debt. We're helping now to bail out bankrupt European nations like Greece. Wait until you see what I have coming in the next 10 minutes. It will blow your mind. It was a crazy idea according to Time, last April, that I might believe that Mexico could collapse and chaos pour across our border. They thought it was crazy last year.

Well, corruption in Mexican government is pretty much a way of life. Drug cartels are so powerful, Mexican troops have been deployed by thousands to fight them. Two thousand and two hundred thirteen drug- related deaths have been recorded so far this year. Nearly 535 police and military officers were killed last year alone. More than 11,000 people overall have died in the drug war in two years.

The situation is so grave that the U.S. Congress appropriated $1.3 billion to fight the drug war, with another $310 million requested for 2011. This is for Mexico with the Merida Initiative. This is not for our own law enforcement agencies. No, no, this is for them. As for chaos crossing the border — well, why do you think, all of a sudden, Arizona is in the news? Because Phoenix is second in the world in kidnappings. Number two, a city in the United States. Bogota, Colombia, is number one. Nearly all of them, illegal aliens or drug-related. And that's why it doesn't make the news because these people who are passionate and care so deeply don't seem to care about the kidnapping. I don't understand that.

A year ago, Time magazine could find no evidence that America believes too little in God and too much in global warming. They made me "Fears of a Clown." Well, here's a recent Gallup poll that shows, in fact, we are losing our religion. Survey says, since 1948, Americans say they have no religion has increased by 500 percent. One year after lamenting my crazy stand on global warming, it's become crystal clear that scientists fudged the data, lied about the numbers, gone out of their way to exaggerate the problem, and yet, tomorrow, they will introduce the cap-and-trade bill in Congress. Also from Time in the cover story they ran on me, "Mad Man," Time alleged that I was afraid of one-world government which would turn a once proud America into another France, ruled by a one-world government.

Well, let's see, speaking of France, the French president of the European Central Bank, Jean-Claude Trichet, told Forbes that global government is "extremely necessary." Al Gore has also said the same thing. Leaders have spoken openly about one-world currency. Barack Obama, himself, numerous times now is calling for the global financial regulation. One year later, it is so commonplace to hear politicians use variation of the phrase global government that nobody is paying attention anymore. Unless you say we're headed for a global government. And then it's crazy to notice for some reason.

My favorite line from Time that I like to use as evidence that what was insane a year ago is commonplace today. "He used to be afraid that hypocritical Republicans in the Bush administration were killing capitalism and gutting liberty, but now, all he is afraid that all-too- sincere leftists in the Obama administration are plotting the same thing."

How do I even begin to respond to that? You know what? I'll tell you what. I'm going to let Bush and the Obama administration do it for me.


GEORGE W. BUSH, FORMER PRESIDENT: I have abandoned free market principles to save the free market system.

RON BLOOM: We get the joke. We know that the free market is nonsense.


BECK: What a difference a year makes. So the question is this, America — a year later, who is crazy? Are you crazy? Or do we have to attach the crazy title to those people who refuse to recognize that our country is transforming overnight? You decide.



BECK: I told you yesterday that we're going to be exposing the players of Crime, Inc. on the international level. And it's pretty dicey. But I decided this morning before you understand the people behind this corruption, you need to understand the end game and some of the things that are happening right now.

That's what we are going to focus on tonight. There are three stories that I want to talk to you about. They're all in the news, but something is wrong. Something is wrong.

When you hear these stories, I want you to ask yourself, how is this making America into a stronger nation? What is our exit strategy? What does this look like at the end?

Here's story number one. It's about a 76-year-old law that unions have been ruling their elections for a long time. It's just been changed now by the Obama administration. First change in 76 years. The National Labor Relations Board made it much easier for the airlines and railroad workers to organize.

OK. Airlines are always going out of business and the trains are subsidized. I mean, how is the union going to help here? New rule would allow the union to be recognized with a simple majority of workers who cast ballots, OK?

The previous rule required an OK from the majority of the entire workforce. But if they hold an election, you're not there. Oh, well. Before, if you didn't vote, you were counted as a no vote.

Who pushed for the change? Good friends at the AFL-CIO. CEO Richard Trumka responded yesterday to the decision saying the new rule, quote, "Allows for a more fair and consistent Democratic process."

They're always in there for our democracy. What is it that "Free Press" co-founder Robert McChesney said again about our democracy and how to make our system work?

Here it is, "There is no real answer but to remove brick by brick the capitalist system, itself, rebuilding the entire society on socialist principles." There it is.

What are unions? OK. They're socializing the workers that aren't getting the job done, making it fair, spreading the wealth. Unions are responsible - not alone. It was the management of the car companies in league with the unions. They both self-destruct.

But unions played a big role in the recent collapse of our auto industry. Why are we making it easier for them to form when we have to be competitive? What is that? What are we doing to the system if we start to make everything unionized? That doesn't make any sense.

Now, here's the next story. The next story is about Fannie and Freddie. You might have heard, maybe not, that Fannie Mae is now seeing $8.4 billion more of your money from the Treasury Department after losing $13.1 billion in the first quarter.

Why is that not a bigger story? Last week, Freddie Mac said it would need another $10.6 billion in government funds after losing $8 billion in the first quarter. Do you remember them asking this money? Did you see that?

The two firms now have tapped more than $145 billion from Uncle Sam's unlimited credit line. They don't have to ask you for money anymore or ask your permission. They just do it. They just take your credit card and charge as much as they want. Did you ask for this? Are you for this?

The third story is Greece — Greece. We're not only bailing ourselves out, Fannie Mae and Freddie, but now, we're trying to bail out Europe as well. The European Union, along with the IMF, is giving $1 trillion to Greece — $1 trillion. The U.S. contributes 17 percent of the IMF funds.

So how much are we on the hook for? $54 billion — $54 billion. That's more than the White House expects for budgets of our Commerce Department, our Labor Department, Interior, the Treasury — $48 billion. You've got to be kidding me. That is all of these combined for this year.

The original bailout was $787 billion. That was for us. Then, it was speculated to be maybe $1.5 trillion. Then it was $3 trillion. The speculation now — nobody knows. But they think our bailouts of us could be upwards of $20 trillion. They're just charging it. You don't even know.

What are the final answers here? Where are we headed? What are we doing? Because now, we're doing this globally. What happened after we gave the money to Greece? This one really bothers me. The market crashed. And now, I get up this morning and I read that credit default swaps are at a high.

Well, most people don't even know what a credit default swap is. That's when they take all of the credit and bundle it together and then they bet. It's like going to Vegas. They bet. Do you think that is going to last?

Yes. You think they're going to be able to pay that off or is it going to default? You get $1 trillion in bailout money. And the people betting against you saying that you're going to default anyway, once you've got the $1 trillion.

The credit default swaps went up. Why? The market knows this isn't going to work. There is something wrong here. Why are we giving them billions of our dollars? The answer, I believe, is globalization and mass redistribution of wealth. It's the progressive mentality.

And they are taking money off of the top. That's all that's happening. They just keep taking money off of the top. This is a progressive plan that has happened for a long, long time. This is not about Obama. This has been going on for a long time.

You've got to know the history of progressivism. I want you to go to "GlennBeck.com" right now. Go to "GlennBeck.com." I've made the "Insider Extreme" free. Check out the preview of progressivism and the cancer of — America's cancer.

We have documentaries and history lessons that you won't find anywhere else. I'm trying to correct history, as fast as I can. We do it on our "Insider Extreme" and I've made it open and free for you right now.

Go to GlennBeck.com and just snoop around and look and see if you learn anything there. Back in a minute.


BECK: Thanks to the European Union and the International Monetary Fund, Europe is getting bailout of close to $1 trillion. And now, the markets are betting against the plan.

I asked David Asman to come by. He is the host of "America's Nightly Scoreboard" on the Fox Business Network. And he understands all this and can better explain it. Because I want to tell my concerns and what I think is going on.

Let me tell you if it's right or where I've got it wrong here. The credit default swaps, when I saw this — correct me if I'm wrong. Credit default is insurance, OK? Bundled up, everybody's debt, OK, like Greece. And now, people are betting on whether it is going to default or not.

DAVID ASMAN, HOST, "AMERICA'S NIGHTLY SCOREBOARD": Right. The price of credit defaults goes up as the thing that they are insuring goes down in value.

BECK: Yes.

ASMAN: That is, they're insurance in case of a default. And because Greece moves ever closer to default, credit default swaps are moving up in price. But the problem is — can I just interject? The problem is if Greece does default, the CDSs have to be paid off.

And somebody, the person who issued the credit default swap is going to have to pay a lot of money, which is what happened with the subprime. Guess who is issuing the CDSs?

BECK: This is going to make your head explode.

ASMAN: AIG — AIG, which we essentially nationalized because they couldn't pay off the credit default swaps on subprimes, are now partly as a government entity, U.S. government entity, issuing credit default swaps on Greece.

So if Greece defaults, the U.S. government is going to be on the tab for even more than the $200 billion they are now for the credit default swaps and the subprime.

BECK: So how much is that going to add to this?

ASMAN: Who knows? Who knows how much the — the problem with the Credit Default Swap markets — they're very secret. Government — there are — right now, there are hearings on trying to open them up through markets.

BECK: Who buys them?

ASMAN: Billionaire hedge funds, banks, et cetera.

BECK: All right. Let me ask you this...

ASMAN: By the way, that's what the banks are doing with your TARP money...

BECK: Right.

ASMAN: Are buying some of the CDSs.

BECK: I know. So here's what I'm thinking, that this is a giant scam and we all know it. But let me explain it a little bit and see if - tell me where I'm wrong. We bail out — let's just — I'm using Goldman Sachs as an example.

We bail out Goldman Sachs, OK? We give them the money, OK? So they get that bailout money. Then they take some of that money and they bet against themselves. They bet on default, right?

ASMAN: Right.

BECK: They get a pay-off twice.

ASMAN: Right. Oh, yes. Well, three times, actually, because remember they are borrowing money from the fed at zero percent interest. So they got — and that could be the biggest money of all, because that's — it's the fed that has been pushing out all these dollars.


ASMAN: So eventually, that is going to...


BECK: How much time do we have, Erin? How much time? One minute. Real quick. Let me ask you this, we're buying the — the fed is also buying euros.

ASMAN: That's right.

BECK: I wouldn't buy euros in a million years.

ASMAN: That's right.

BECK: It's collapsing.

ASMAN: It's the political class of one nation protecting the rear end of a political class of another nation. That's all it is. The people can be damned.

BECK: But what we're buying is we're buying a beat-up, you know, 1981 Yugo, right? With no engine. We're saying, "We'll take your euros. Here, have dollars."

ASMAN: And we're paying for it with what should cost - what a Rolls-Royce would cost.

BECK: And you've got nothing left in the end. That doesn't sound like a good plan. We'll explain a little bit more on maybe what is happening here with David Asman, next.


BECK: Back with David Asman, host of "America's Nightly Scoreboard" on the Fox Business Network. And we're trying to figure some things out here. And credit default swaps went up in price which means the people who have money, the Goldman Sachs of the world...

ASMAN: Right.

BECK: Are betting against Greece with our money.

ASMAN: Right.

BECK: David, I feel like people keep throwing money onto the table. And then, the stock market and everything else rises. And then the big players, the people who really know, the Goldmans, et cetera — they just take all that money off the table. Things collapse. People relax.

They put a little bit more money in the — they go back into the market. We bail some more people out. They say everything's going to be fine. More money is there. They take it off. It collapses again. It's like they are raking the money off the table. They're shaking us for change.

ASMAN: Well, people were more careful on Wall Street when they had to pay a price for their mistakes.

BECK: Right.

ASMAN: If you don't pay a price for your mistake, you make even wilder bets than the normal price.

BECK: But I'm not talking about the regular — I think the regular person is being shaken for change.

ASMAN: Oh, yes. Absolutely. But when these countries — and it's not just here in these countries that are being affected now by the IMF austerity. What is the first thing the IMF tells a country to do? Devalue the currency.

They can't because they're tied into the euro and raised tax rates. The average person on the street in Greece — I mean, I don't know. These riots are something else, that is caused by the communist unions, et cetera.

But the average person on the street in Greece is going through terrible time. They have to pay value-added tax now of 21 percent. Shortly, it will be 23 percent in order for them to get squeezed to pay off the banks that have the Greek debt. I mean, they're being shaken down...

BECK: I'm chasing down...

ASMAN: People on the street are shaken down for the banks.

BECK: I've got about 20 seconds here. It's not just the bank, though. It's not the bank. It is this global government structure and all of our governments and the fed and everybody else is involved. Is it not?

ASMAN: Absolutely. Well, it's — and they become more involved the more the government gets involved in finance.

BECK: OK. Back in just a second. Thanks, David.


BECK: You know what's super-fantastic? Tomorrow, they're finally going to introduce the cap-and-trade bill. Yes, they're really going to do it — perfect day to return to Crime, Inc., the global connections.

Gandhi said use truth as your anvil, non-violence as your hammer. And anything that doesn't stand the test when it's brought to the anvil of truth and hammered with non-violence, reject it. See you tomorrow.

From New York, good night, America.

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.