Sign in to comment!


All the President's Men

I want to have a serious conversation with you tonight because we're on the beginning of something that, quite honestly, the more we dig into it, the more things you see in the next week — it's going to explain everything. All of the pieces that we thought we were exposing one-by-one, we thought they were important. But now that we're beginning to see the whole puzzle piece, we're beginning to see the whole picture.

And as I told you last night, when some of these pieces started to come in, one of our producers who gets it, I think it just really hit home with her. And I went over to her cubicle and she had tears in her eyes because she realized, as she said to me, what all of this means. It's one thing to say, "Hey, I think you have cancer." It's another to then get confirmation of it. We are calling this "Crime Inc." You don't want to miss a single episode. And I thank you so much for going out on the Internet last night and finding so much stuff and sending it to us on the tip line.

You will not believe what we're finding and all the thousands of tips we are getting. Please, when you find something on the Internet, please don't send us a link. You've got to burn some of this stuff to a DVD. You can send us the hyperlink, but if it has been scrubbed or if it's been lost off the Internet, we need screen shots and we need the actual video. So, if you find it, please, screen-shot it and burn it to a DVD. Send us the link and we'll contact you if it's been — if it's no longer there.

Now, in the next few days, in the next few weeks, if you know somebody who's on the fence or if you, yourself, are not sure, I'm not asking you to believe anything that I'm saying. I am asking you to think about it. I am asking you to look at it. I'm asking you to explain it any other way — because I'm not — in the next week or so — I'm not going to just roll out in Crime Inc. just one thing. This is beginning to explain everything that is going on. And it is either the most elaborate set of coincidences or it is something else. And if it is indeed what we all believe it is — I asked one of my producers today. How do you expose this and live? And he said, "You better make sure it's right and take it down, because you don't wound this."

Explain it any other way. Tonight, I want to go back a little bit and I want to just show you some of the people that we have talked about in the last year because if — I think people have gotten numb. And we're now able to put actions behind things that people dismissed. But I want to go back to some of the main players.

For instance, a year ago, if I told you there was a 9/11 truther in the White House, or a communist in the White House, or somebody who was running our manufacturing section that didn't believe in capitalism, or somebody who liked Chairman Mao, or somebody who wanted to legally limit free speech, or someone who wanted government operatives to infiltrate any group that disagreed with the administration — government operative operatives. If I told you one of those people existed, it would have been a bad thing and people would have done what people did with Van Jones. They stepped up and Van Jones was not discredited. He was just moved.

But if I told you these things in dribs and drabs because we were figuring it out at the time or spread it out over a year, America might become numb to what it really means. But if you stop for just a minute and you look at all of them, and you have an umbrella that begins to show you what's coming and what's happening, you might have a slightly different view. Let me show you the umbrella, OK?

Well, this — granted, Maurice Strong will say this is for a novel that he was writing but he has never written a novel, and Maurice Strong is a guy who is U.N.-central and surprisingly involved in almost everything. This is what he said in 1990 in an interview. He said: "What if a small group of these world leaders were to conclude that the principal risk to the Earth comes from the actions of rich countries in order to save the planet, this group decided, `Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn't it our responsibility to bring that about?'"

OK, let me just go over a few of these things. So, this is a what-if. And remember, what we're talking about is a novel that has never been written all these many years later. And he's never written on, but it's a good novel. But words have power. We're looking for a small group of people. They've got to be global. A small global group of people. They have to believe — the small group of people — that there is a threat to the Earth, a principal threat to the Earth, which is that rich countries are the problem. A risk to the Earth, and that risk is rich countries. Then they also have to believe that this group, they see this risk and it's coming from the rich countries. And the best thing they can do, the only hope is for the planet to collapse the industrialized civilization, OK? So they have to collapse the system.

Wouldn't it be our responsibility to bring that about? OK? Why would it be their responsibility to bring that out? Well, if you can't convince people of these things, then you've got to do it a different way. And if you do it in a different way, then that means you need control. This is the thesis for what I'm going to be laying out, a little of it tonight but over the next week. And, America, you are not going to believe how all of the pieces fit. It is terrifying. It is more than Crime Inc. Holy cow!

OK. So let's find the group of people, OK? The group of people that believe in Cloward and Piven because you've got to collapse the industrialized civilization. I mean, I don't even think I need to explain this one. Our deficit for April just came out. It was more than $82 billion. That is four times more than the April deficit one year ago and two times more than what they projected in worst case scenarios. Cloward and Piven. But there's another way to collapse a system, to fundamentally transform it.

If your system that has wealth and understands wealth and the free market, you just stop the free market and take away the wealth. But if you do that, you better do it quickly and you better hope that somebody doesn't begin to expose it. But if somebody does expose it, you better stop it. You better stop anyone, any kind of dissent, control them because you're not just fundamentally transforming the country, you're transforming lives.

Tonight, I want to begin to introduce you to the ones you already know, all the president's men. And let's see what they all have in common. Let's see what kind of picture all these little puzzle pieces make. Do they fit with each other? This is more than having a few things in common. These are fundamental principles. And some of the things we've told you have been denied or dismissed over and over again. But when they're separate, it's easier to believe the denial. But when you start looking to them as a collection, you start to see — wait a minute, I don't believe that.

For instance, Van Jones. When he was caught on tape, 9/11 truther, and he had a 9/11 truther, you know, his signature on a list, his excuse, he said he didn't know what he was signing. He was tricked into signing it and he thought he was helping 9/11 families. Got that? John Holdren. John Holdren — his radical views on forced abortions and sterilizing the drinking water were under scrutiny. His staff said, this is material that's — I mean, it came out in the 1970s and it's all academic. OK, you could believe that, and many senators and many people in America still do. But then we found this guy yesterday who has the same kind of views. OK? When you have Barack Obama sitting in a pew with a pastor for 20 years that was a Jew-hating crazy guy, hates America.

Nobody wants to think that the president of the United States has any of those views. So, he says I wasn't aware of those statements. Now, I find that hard to believe that Jeremiah Wright can open his mouth for 20 seconds without saying something crazy, let alone 20 years. But again, by itself, you believe it. By itself, you might buy it. By itself, you might buy it. When Anita Dunn said, you know, Chairman Mao was the philosopher she turned to most. She said she was joking in an attempt at irony, but it clearly fell flat. OK, if it was one. It was novel, it was smears, I didn't hear it, I didn't see it, it was a joke, it was just academic, we were just speaking — no, we didn't mean it that way. Oh, it's out of context. All these guys who are saying this are just trying to destroy me. I mean, the people involved it's always the same thing.

See, if these radical ideas are just open-mindedness, well, then, where are all the other ideas on the other side of things? How come the academics aren't wondering what a country with no government regulation would look like or very limited government regulation? It always seems to be a radical progressive giant. I mean, Mao kind of state. I want to see if we can put this together here. Just — we're looking for a group of people — I think we have it — who think there's a threat to the Earth — we have it. They're all global warming people. They believe rich countries are the problem — we have that. Collapse the system — they're doing it. And control. Let's see if we can put this together. First of all, global governance — and I'm just going to use the ones that you've probably seen before, but again, we're laying the foundation of something that you will not believe — global government. Here is Andy Stern. Watch.


ANDY STERN, SEIU PRESIDENT: We created global trade, we created global finance, we created global companies but we forgot to create a global government, or global organization or global regulators that McCarthy is talking about now. Now, I happened to be at Davos and I say they're going to rename this year's Davos as revenge of the country over the companies because, all of a sudden, we realize we let global capitalism run amok and we need global regulation. And today, we began the process in London of actually putting in place those regulations.


OK. So, we have a union guy talking — I mean, the unions used to fight against other countries and the labor. I mean, now they're fighting for global government. OK? Maurice Strong, this is the guy who we've introduced you to, who's s U.N.-central. I mean, this guy, look him up. Spooky dude. Maurice Strong wrote this introduction to a book in 1991, global government. "This interlocking is the new reality of the century, with profound implications for the shape of our institutions of governance, national and international. Beyond interdependence." Beyond — what is beyond interdependence? What is it? He also says by the year 2012, these changes must be fully integrated into our economic and political life. Why by 2012? And he said that in 1991. The global governance advocates seem to settle on achieving their ends through environmentalism — environmentalism.

Remember, hence, we've got almost everybody we find is into global government. I mean, Clinton Global Initiative. All of it — all of it is global now. Now they might say that this is a conspiracy theory because you're talking about a global government, but listen to the overwhelming evidence — listen to any of them. They're all talking about global currency, global governance. Who runs it? Who runs it? Maurice Strong on environmentalism because that's the next thing. You got to have — you got to have a threat to the Earth. He said this: "The real goal of the Earth charter is the fact, in fact, it will become like the Ten Commandments." He also said this — watch.


MAURICE STRONG, ENVIRONMENTALIST: I can say if we continue on our present trend or our present course, it's very likely that in many parts of the world, this will be the case. In fact, we have begun to see it in many areas. Now, licenses to have babies incidentally is something that I got in trouble for, some years ago for suggesting even in Canada that this might be necessary at some point or some, at least some restriction on the right to have a child. I'm not proposing this. I was simply predicting this as one of the possible courses of society would have to be — would have to seriously consider should we get ourselves into this kind of situation.


OK. This is Zeke Emanuel's complete live system. This is John Holdren. I mean, this is not a crazy — now, he says I'm not —- exactly what Zeke Emanuel said — I'm not proposing this. No, no, no. I'm not proposing. I'm just saying in case there is an emergency. So, you've got — OK? This is — that's Cass Sunstein. Where's John Holdren. Oops. We got John Holdren. John Holdren said it as well. Now, remember, John Holdren is our science czar.

In 1977, John Holdren in his science textbook floated around population control ideas, like a government might require only implantation of a contraceptive capsule, leaving its removal to the individual's discretion but requiring re-implantation after childbirth. OK, that is 1977. He said this and he said this. It's the same story. And they're all cross-pollinating here.

Again, not asking you to believe it — just explain the odds of this coincidence. OK? Explain the odds. Science czar, the Earth is on fire. We've got to do whatever we have to do, if we ever get to that point, we have to sterilize people or force abortions. Same thing, neither of them proposing it, but just in case. And they also — wow, look at this — they also believe in the redistribution of wealth. Let's go there happen because that's the next one. There's a threat, a small group of people that believe there's a threat to the Earth, and the rich countries are the problem, OK? And they got to collapse the system.

We already know what they're doing. They're spending money — billions of dollars globally, globally. You and I know the Greece thing is not going to work. The market knows the Greece thing is not going to work. Why would we spend $1 trillion? Why? Why is Fannie and Freddie? Why does Fannie and Freddie have an open door to spending? Nobody even asks us anymore. They can spend whatever they want. Why? Let's go to redistribution of wealth. Here's Andy Stern. He's now on Obama's board of fiscal advisors. Listen to what he says about redistribution of wealth.


STERN: The government has a major opportunity to distribute wealth, through the EITC, through tax policies, through minimum wages, through living wages. The government has a role in distributing wealth or social benefits like Medicare, Medicaid, children's health insurance. There are opportunities in America to share better in the wealth, to rebalance the power. And unions and government are part of the solution.


Workers of the world unite. OK? Understand that we're not talking about giving — taking my money and giving it to the poor here in America. We are talking about taking — this is a group of people that believe in global government. He himself says, "Workers of the world unite." So, it's not just taking the rich man's money and giving it to somebody poor here in America, we're all the richest 10 percent in the world. If you live here, we all are the richest 10 percent. How about Obama himself? What does he say about it?


PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: It's not that I want to punish your success. I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they've got a chance for success, too. Everybody's so pinched that business is bad for everybody and I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody. One of the — I think — the tragedies of the civil rights movement was because the civil rights movement became so court-focused I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing, and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of power through which you bring about redistributive change. And, in some ways, we still suffer from that.


Explain that. If you think we're going to keep America as it is, explain just that quote. With all the things you've seen, explain it. Have your friends explain it now. OK. So, now, let's go to the science czar, John Holdren. You remember, he wants the sterilants in drinking water, you know, in case. And that was just academic. This guy — what did he say of distribution of wealth?


JOHN HOLDREN, SCIENCE CZAR: I think, ultimately, the rate of growth of material consumption is going to have to come down and there's going to have to be a degree of redistribution of how much we consume in terms of energy and material resources in order to leave room for people who are poor to become more prosperous.


OK. So we have to downgrade. Now, let's go to Maurice Strong again — talking about collapsing the economy. I'll show you what he wants and the end of this story next.

— Watch "Glenn Beck" weekdays at 5 p.m. ET on Fox News Channel